In completely unrelated news, Holder also announced the immediate retirement of Kenneth Melson, the former acting director of the ATF, and Jason Weinstein.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

Old Fuff

September 20, 2012, 12:24 PM

In completely unrelated news, Holder also announced the immediate retirement of Kenneth Melson, the former acting director of the ATF, and Jason Weinstein.

Ah… Justice is served after all. Melson gets to retire with a generous pension, and Weinstein is hung out to dry, but nothing worse. The guys at the top get off and the whole matter can be quickly forgotten before the election. All is well… :rolleyes: :banghead:

Neverwinter

September 20, 2012, 02:09 PM

The guys at the top get off and the whole matter can be quickly forgotten before the election. All is well
Yeah, this post is a good illustration of why there was a deafening silence on the whole matter; the IG investigation didn't arrive at their premonitory conclusion. The report only exists to serve as a confirmation of what they already believe, and any failure to come to their conclusion is a failure of the facts to come to The Truth.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Jim K

September 20, 2012, 02:47 PM

Gee whiz! Justice is served. Holder's employee finds out that his boss did nothing wrong! What did anyone expect? Truth?

Of course, someone had to be thrown to the wolves to placate the right wing, until Obama's second term, when he can dispose of those inconvenient people.

Jim

Neverwinter

September 20, 2012, 03:35 PM

Gee whiz! Justice is served. Holder's employee finds out that his boss did nothing wrong! What did anyone expect? Truth?
Of course not, all internal affairs divisions are inherently corrupt. That's why the Congressional commission is there, to take the evidence and come to a different conclusion. The Right conclusion. They're going to find the Guilt-of-the-gaps. The Truth Is Out There. ;)

Deanimator

September 20, 2012, 04:19 PM

Of course not, all internal affairs divisions are inherently corrupt.
Certainly ANYTHING to do with THIS Justice Department is quintessentially corrupt and nothing that comes out of it should be taken at face value. Even by the report's own admission, there were those in the White House who refused to cooperate with the investigation.

Holder and Obama found themselves not responsible for Fast & Furious just as Beria and Stalin found themselves not responsible for Katyn.

This was a false flag operation intended to justify a new AWB. There isn't even the slightest doubt about it.

Those who deny it, invariably support repressive gun controls. Fast & Furious was intended to do what they wanted. The coverup likewise.

"The White House did not produce to us any internal White House communications, noting that 'the White House is beyond the purview of the Inspector General’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Department of Justice programs and personnel,'" said the report.

Deanimator

September 20, 2012, 04:50 PM

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-fast-and-furious-report-wh-aide-declined-interview-ig-white-house-did-not-produce
And what would these degenerate curs say to any of US?

"If you have nothing to hide, why won't you cooperate?"

brickeyee

September 20, 2012, 06:18 PM

And Holder escapes by being so incompetent he did not know what his own department was doing.

He 'hired' and supervised his subordinates, so he is responsible if they failed to inform him.

Stupid for the win.

unspellable

September 20, 2012, 07:55 PM

Meanwhile, I have some prime swamp land in Florida for sale.

k_dawg

September 20, 2012, 08:45 PM

Holder either knew about it and is guilty for that. OR, he did not know about it, and is equality guilty.

If a ship runs a-ground, the captain is to blame. Even if he was sleeping in his quarters at the time.

oldcelt

September 20, 2012, 09:13 PM

This is no surprise to me. I already know that generals are never courtmartialed.

Fremmer

September 20, 2012, 10:57 PM

Holder should be found in contempt of congress for stonewalling this investigation. When will obama tell the parents of a murdered border patrol agent what really happened, and how it was allowed to happen?

Neverwinter

September 21, 2012, 12:35 AM

The Right conclusion. They're going to find the Guilt-of-the-gaps. The Truth Is Out There.
Even by the report's own admission, there were those in the White House who refused to cooperate with the investigation.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-...id-not-produce

Quote:
"The White House did not produce to us any internal White House communications, noting that 'the White House is beyond the purview of the Inspector General’s Office, which has jurisdiction over Department of Justice programs and personnel,'" said the report.
Called it. :cool:

This was a false flag operation intended to justify a new AWB. There isn't even the slightest doubt about it.
The fallacy of logic seems pandemic at this point wherein the absence of evidence of A=B doesn't prevent people from maintaining their belief that A=B=C. The report observes a lack of involvement on Holder's part, and for some reason people think that the communications within the White House is relevant. Unless the WH is going around the AG regarding the operations of the DOJ without contacting the Arizona offices, they would be barking up the wrong tree. Perhaps it remains plausible to a mind which finds clairvoyance about Holder's guilt a tenable concept.

At this point, the deniers are only digging themselves a deeper hole as they join the company of the birthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

unspellable

September 21, 2012, 12:36 AM

Fremmer,

The answer to your first comment is that Holder has already been found in contempt of congress for exactly that.

The answer to your question is "never".

Zoogster

September 21, 2012, 01:03 AM

No good comment.

Shadow 7D

September 21, 2012, 02:01 AM

Well, Neverwinter, you will never convince those who find that the whitehouse seemed AWFUL ready to use the F&F guns to justify what was for all intents and purposes a run up of anti gun fervor, need I remind you the president calling out boarder dealers and joint statements with the mexican president.

so, while, without the whitehouse documents, you can say a+b=c, you can say that A used B (which it created) to further C, that's an AWFUL strong correlation.

Deanimator

September 21, 2012, 06:44 AM

At this point, the deniers are only digging themselves a deeper hole as they join the company of the birthers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Those who WANT a new AWB are never going to acknowledge, much less condemn, the actions of those who acted recklessly to further one.

Neverwinter

September 21, 2012, 04:01 PM

so, while, without the whitehouse documents, you can say a+b=c, you can say that A used B (which it created) to further C, that's an AWFUL strong correlation.
You misread that statement. The equation refers to transitive logic in which people believe that the people carrying out the walking were organized all the way from Obama. The B=C refers to the Holder-Obama connection, and the A=B refers to AZ-Holder. The report found that A=B has no evidence. I hope that cleats up the confusion.

Those who WANT a new AWB are never going to acknowledge, much less condemn, the actions of those who acted recklessly to further one.If this were true, then the Holder emails condemning walking provided to the Congressional committee show that he doesn't want an AWB. Not to mention the DOJ retraction statements after the initial denial that walking did occur.
That contradicts the belief Truthers have which holds that the DOJ wants another AWB.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Deanimator

September 21, 2012, 04:58 PM

If this were true, then the Holder emails condemning walking provided to the Congressional committee show that he doesn't want an AWB. Not to mention the DOJ retraction statements after the initial denial that walking did occur.
Having somebody pushed under the bus YOU are driving isn't exactly a renunciation of the bus's destination.

Again, the AHSA types will defend any act in furtherance of another AWB.

Neverwinter

September 21, 2012, 05:56 PM

Having somebody pushed under the bus YOU are driving isn't exactly a renunciation of the bus's destination.Except the report shows that Holder wasn't "driving the bus", so your analogy is ignorant of the evidence.

Again, the AHSA types will defend any act in furtherance of another AWB.Link for the statement from the AHSA regarding F&F?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Deanimator

September 21, 2012, 06:17 PM

Except the report shows that Holder wasn't "driving the bus", so your analogy is ignorant of the evidence.
The report is a whitewash, and by its own admission incomplete.

Link for the statement from the AHSA regarding F&F?
AHSA as an organization is deservedly defunct, hence "AHSA TYPES". For an example of them, refer to your own posts.

Fremmer

September 21, 2012, 06:21 PM

Holder and obama are withholding thousands of documents, and the only reasonable explanation is that holder and obama don't want to openly and honestly tell congress what really happened. And a federal district court should send holder to jail for being in contempt. Once again, what is obama trying to hide? What did obama know,and when did he know it?

And the author of this "report" works for holder. And so holder has been declared innocent and the same department that refuses to lawfully comply with a congressional subpoena has reaffimed that the documents aren't necessary for congressional review. How very open and transparent.

bhesler

September 21, 2012, 09:28 PM

...If this were true, then the Holder emails condemning walking provided to the Congressional committee show that he doesn't want an AWB. Not to mention the DOJ retraction statements after the initial denial that walking did occur.
That contradicts the belief Truthers have which holds that the DOJ wants another AWB.

It doesn't take any conspiracy theory logic to show that he does want to reinstate the AWB. It simply takes quoting his own words.

1. From a February 26, 2009 interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4831751-503544.html

Responding to a reporter's question on weapons' regulations, Holder said, "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

2. From his February 2, 2012 testimony to the House Oversight Committee:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/holder-tells-congress-the-obama-administration-wants-to-ban-guns/

"This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico."

It is only a small leap, then, to link this as a motivating factor in formulating the F&F operation, which started in the fall of 2009. This is then compounded by stonewalling the Oversight committee, and finally by Executive Privilege.

I don't know if this truly started in the upper levels of the administration, but I do know that they want to reinstate the AWB, and that is enough for me.

SHR970

September 21, 2012, 11:18 PM

At the very least, Operation Wide Reciever had the Mexican Government involved and informed under Pres. Bush. That means that State Dept. had to be involved. When they knew that they couldn't keep the guns tracked (ie they were walking) they shut it down.

In F&F the Mexican Government was kept in the dark (ie no State Dept.). The guns were blatantly allowed to walk. Known felons were allowed to purchase (ie the FBI was complicit in not denying during background) as well as straw purchases. With no State Dept. involvement, you have International Trafficking In Arms without authorization! Only the State Dept. may issue export licensing for ITAR. By blatantly allowing guns to walk, the AG's office is complicit in ITAR violations. Can you say CONSPIRACY???:scrutiny: Do you know what the largest fine on record for ITAR violations is? :what: So either a lot of folks including the S of S are involved (even by the I didn't hear this route) or you have a felonious rouge operation. Either way this whole thing stinks to high heaven. :fire:

Shadow 7D

September 22, 2012, 03:26 AM

Wait, aren't ITAR's actionable under international treaty, as in Mexico can sue the US at the UN or Hague or something.

Point is F&F either 1. a SMALL group of LOCAL dudes that pushed a SMALL investigation/operation that escaped the radar... (and I think even Neverwinter can agree it isn't)

OR
2. a large operation that went to the right levels to 'approve' breaking just about EVERY gun law on the books, and then letting the guns to for NO POINT (come on, have they even bothered to arrest the strawmen?)

lacking a defined point, (and um, the trace idea, if they wanted that why don't the just trace the m16's we give the mexican army that show up???? -> really?) and then there is the kicker, WHAT was the action that was done with the data

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/nation/la-na-fast-furious-cable-20110726
and then there was the whole Obama/Calderon +(major media) push for a AWB
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=az2PCuXpw2K4
hell Obama held a joint new conference with him at one point.

so how bout this, take this as warning of how this stuff is done

OH and on a complete different note, did you know the 1986 Hughes Amendment was actually voted down via electronic count, but passed by 'voice' vote... learn something new every day, so no I don't put something like F&F, stupidity malice,

remember these are the people who said 'never a let a crisis go to waste'

BHP FAN

September 22, 2012, 05:39 AM

well, if this administration gets another term, we'll all find out if they are up to no good.

Carl N. Brown

September 22, 2012, 01:16 PM

The DOJ OIG implies more about Holder than it actually says, in particular in the DOJ OIG investigation of what Bush AG Mukasey knew about Wide Receiver. It confirms what I suspected.

2012 Jun 12 in testimony before Congress, AG Holder had stated:
If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I’m the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them – nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.

2012 Jun 12 - Obama Admin USAG Holder angrily declaimed before a Congressional Committee that Mukasey had been briefed on "these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them – nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance."

2012 Jun 14 Senator Grassley responded in a letter to AG Holder that the DOJ had produced no briefing on Operation Wide Receiver to any AG; that DOJ produced a memo on the later and lesser Hernandez Case to AG Mukasey preparatory to a 16 Nov 2007 meeting with his Mexican counterpart Medina Mora.

Holder either lied or was incompetent when he accused Mukasey of knowing about Wide Receiver, not stopping it and allowing 300 to 400 guns to walk. Mukasey was never in a position to do anything to stop "gunwalking" under Operation Wide Receiver (2006-2007) or "controlled delivery" in cooperation with Mexican police in the Hernadez Case (2007).

The DOJ OIG Report Sep 2012 describes "that former Attorney General Mukasey was not briefed about Operation Wide Receiver or gun "walking," but on a different and traditional law enforcement tactic that was employed in a different case."

Neverwinter

September 22, 2012, 03:44 PM

The report is a whitewash, and by its own admission incomplete. Absence of internal WH communication isn't relevant to the unsupported claims that Obama was involved. The report showed no coordination on the part of Holder, the pertinent Cabinet member from the DOJ. As has been explained, making the claim of organization on the part of Obama without the link between Holder and the AZ offices requires the assumption of clairvoyance.

Claiming that the communications within the WH is relevant to proving that Holder or Obama was involved in coordination of the actions of the AZ offices doesn't make logical sense. Internal communications by definition do not involve external parties.

AHSA as an organization is deservedly defunct, hence "AHSA TYPES". For an example of them, refer to your own posts.
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I wasn't aware of the neo-Mccarthyism that you were professing. Anyone who doesn't follow your unfounded beliefs of Holder and Obama being involved in a shadow conspiracy to traffic guns for a new AWB is a Communist, I mean, AHSA type.

Holder and obama are withholding thousands of documents, and the only reasonable explanation is that holder and obama don't want to openly and honestly tell congress what really happened. And a federal district court should send holder to jail for being in contempt. Once again, what is obama trying to hide? What did obama know,and when did he know it?
He's hiding proof of Holder's clairvoyance. What other reason could there be for Obama to hide the very real WH documents showing Holder knew about F&F? Based on the report, Holder's knowledge would show incontrovertible evidence of clairvoyance.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Neverwinter

September 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

It doesn't take any conspiracy theory logic to show that he does want to reinstate the AWB. It simply takes quoting his own words.
You spoil the joke when you have to spell out the cognitive dissonance in Deanimators post like that.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

leadcounsel

September 22, 2012, 05:23 PM

Conspiracies and coverups from an 'open and transparent' administration...

Quite disappointing and business as usual.

BTW, if this is the 'truth' then there should be no reason to continue to invoke privilege and not release the documents...

BHP FAN

September 22, 2012, 06:06 PM

....and Leadcounsel nails it in one!

Deanimator

September 22, 2012, 07:22 PM

Absence of internal WH communication isn't relevant to the unsupported claims that Obama was involved.
Yes, people WITHHOLD evidence to prove their innocence.

What would those loathsome curs say to any citizen? "What have you got to hide?"

As I said, the AHSA types want a new AWB. They're hardly going to condemn a conspiracy to foster one.

Deanimator

September 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

BTW, if this is the 'truth' then there should be no reason to continue to invoke privilege and not release the documents...
But don't you understand?

The coverup proves their INNOCENCE.

Would a guilty person OBSTRUCT JUSTICE???

Shadow 7D

September 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

I thought it was JUSTICE DEPARTMENT documents that they were refusing to release ( and something like LESS THAN 10% of the Issa subpenaed have been turned over, most redacted to pointlessness. So, if the IG is working off the 10% released etc. well...)

Really clear and transparent, what conclusion do you expect to hear when all they got to look at was the whitewash?

Carl N. Brown

September 22, 2012, 07:30 PM

Guns were being walked. When questioned about it, Washington HQ ATF and DOJ and AG Holder denied the rumors w/o investigating them repeatedly until denial became ridiculous and impossible. Then a OIG investigation was started and kept under wraps for 18 months from Feb 2011 to Sep 2012.

I note the OIG's statement to Congress that the OF&F investigation began 31 Oct 2009 when a gun store reported four buyers of multiple AK47s to Phoenix ATF.

Dealers are trained to notice patterns of (a) straw purchase and (b) buying for resale w/o a license and urged to report to ATF. Dealers have lost their FFL for being slack about selling to straws or unlicensed dealers. Usually dealers are told not to sell to identified straw purchasers/unlicensed dealers and the suspect IDs are put on the NICS by ATF to deny sales on BG check. Not under OF&F!! Phoenix ATF urged dealers to sell and to re-stock guns requested by the suspects, and had the NICS blocked so the suspects not only were not denied on a BG check, but that when other agencies ran the names, they would not come up.

When ATF agents assigned to Phoenix from other jurisdictions objected to gunwalking, they were told to stand down, and when Dodson, Casa and Alt complained and spoke to the OIG and to Congress, they were scapegoated.

DOJ emails requested under FOIA by The Daily Caller show that DOJ Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler was closely coordinated with Media Matters to attack critics of the DOJ and AG Holder over Fast and Furious and other matters.

I at first thought the BS leaked to Katherine Eban for her "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" CNN/Fortune 27 Jun 2012 article, only came from David Voth and his lawyers. However, the OIG Report states OIG is investigating Phoenix US Attorney Dennis Burke (credited as architect of the AWB by Sen DeConcini) for furnishing internal documents about whistleblower Dodson to "a reporter". What is suspicious is that Eban had information on Dodson's divorce that may have come from his ATF personnel file; Eban contacted Dodson's ex-wife seeking dirt to smear Dodson to discredit the whistleblowers. Eban blames gunwalking on the gundealers, the NRA, and the ATF whistleblowers. Eban also blames failure of Phoenix ATF and USAO to enforce federal law on straw purchase, dealing w/o FFL and arms export to Mexico on nonexistant state laws on straw purchase, dealing w/o FFL and arms export, as though the federal supremacy clause in the Constitution wasn't there.

The OIG Report states that Phoenix ATF and USAO did not arrest straw purchasers or their buyers (who were obviously reselling) in order to walk the guns to a "kingpin" gun trafficker; they were perfectly able to stop, interdict and arrest if they wanted to. They chose not to as a matter of policy, supposedly sanctioned by the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) status of Operation Fast and Furious. When questions were raised about "gunwalking" the Obama/Holder ATF and DOJ denied it repeatedly without investigation until they no longer could get away with it.

I have no confidence in the DOJ HQ assurances. Before Congress Holder claimed Mukasey knew about Wide Receiver and let 300 to 400 guns walk anyway. That turned out to be not true, and the DOJ OIG Report proved it not true, at least showing to me some degree of independent investigation.

As far as Holder desire to re-instate the AWB goes:
On February 25, 2009 newly sworn-in Attorney General Eric Holder repeated the Obama administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.[18] The mention came in response to a question, about 20 minutes into a joint press conference with DEA Acting Administrator Michele Leonhart, discussing efforts to crack down on Mexican drug cartels. Attorney General Holder said: "[...] there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."[19]
18. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 ABC News: Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
19. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821 C-SPAN.org
Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban&oldid=514073480

Couple that desire for a new AWB with Obama & Felipe Calderon's Rose Garden appeals for an AWB to stop bloodshed from Calderon's Mexican Drug War, ratcheted up by him sending in the Army in Dec 2006, and the repetition of the 90% myth, debunked by DHS and Strategic Forecasting, it is easy to imagine a dishonest regime pulling a "false flag" operation. Right now there is more suspicion than evidence.

The DOJ OIG Report comes down hard on Phoenix ATF SAC William Newell, Group Supervisor David Voth, and case agent Hope MacAllister as the most to blame for introducing and perpetuating gun walking under OF&F, but apparently they and their lawyers are saying no, higher-ups knew what they were doing and approved it.

Plus, while we have seen the joint (House and Senate) Committee Report on Phoenix ATF culpability, Part I of III, we have not seen Part II or Part III yet, which examine culpability above the Phoenix federal district level.

Fremmer

September 22, 2012, 07:49 PM

Nothing less than an investigation by independent counsel will uncover the truth about what obama and holder were planning when holder lied to congress and testified that he didn't know about fast and furious. Why is obama withholding thousands of documents, and when are we going to finally get the truth?

The family of a murdered border patrol agent deserves to finally get the truth.

BHP FAN

September 22, 2012, 08:29 PM

we most probably will never get the truth, most certainly not until after the election, and then only if Obama loses.

unspellable

September 22, 2012, 08:40 PM

Some time before all this blew up Obama made a comment to somebody that the usual tactics for getting anti-gun laws passed weren't going to work this time around and hinted that new tactics were in the works.

Now we have Fast & Furious on the one hand and Hillary at the UN on the other.

Deanimator

September 22, 2012, 09:53 PM

Some time before all this blew up Obama made a comment to somebody that the usual tactics for getting anti-gun laws passed weren't going to work this time around and hinted that new tactics were in the works.
When he was criticized by fellow anti-gun fanatics, he replied that he was "working under the radar".

Fast and Furious WAS under the radar until they killed a Border Patrol agent.

Neverwinter

September 23, 2012, 09:30 PM

But don't you understand?

The coverup proves their INNOCENCE.

Would a guilty person OBSTRUCT JUSTICE???

Yes, people WITHHOLD evidence to prove their innocence.

What would those loathsome curs say to any citizen? "What have you got to hide?"
Your amenability to McCarthyism and the Papers Please mentality is hardly justification for a blatant misunderstanding of concepts of reasonable search. Executive privilege is no more a coverup than a refusal to submit to a strip search because your roommate's estranged ex-wife is under investigation. Maybe the roommate is actually in cahoots with the ex-wife despite the surveillance of the wife showing no contact with him; we have no way of knowing that it isn't true unless we can search your rectal cavity. Why would you be obstructing justice?

You say it's about obstructing justice, but it's really about hiding in the harbor of overbroad requests because there is no more refuge for your position in the evidence.

I thought it was JUSTICE DEPARTMENT documents that they were refusing to release ( and something like LESS THAN 10% of the Issa subpenaed have been turned over, most redacted to pointlessness. So, if the IG is working off the 10% released etc. well...)

Really clear and transparent, what conclusion do you expect to hear when all they got to look at was the whitewash?
There are two sets of documents which were not being released to the Congressional committee:

Internal White House documents
DOJ documents

Documents from #1 are still covered under executive privilege, while #2 was available to the IG. As has already been covered in the thread, #1 is irrelevant to the investigation, since there's no evidence that the information got to Holder.

The conclusions that the IG came to were even the same one's from the earlier Congressional committee proceedings which noted that the wiretap paperwork revealed the gun walking. Wiretap approval that would have been approved by Breuer's office; specifically Weinstein's approval acting for Breuer.

Deanimator

September 23, 2012, 09:39 PM

Executive privilege is no more a coverup than a refusal to submit to a strip search because your roommate's estranged ex-wife is under investigation.
Like the Daleks, the Nixonites just keep reappearing out of the void...

Neverwinter

September 23, 2012, 09:48 PM

Conspiracies and coverups from an 'open and transparent' administration...

Quite disappointing and business as usual.

BTW, if this is the 'truth' then there should be no reason to continue to invoke privilege and not release the documents...
If anything, we have dug our own grave in allowing this to become business as usual. We didn't have a problem during Chertoff and Katrina, Gonzalez and attorney firing, and Rumsfeld with Abu Ghraib.

Thankfully, the people who were supporting the above have since gained their senses and have come out the strongest against Holder and Obama, having learned from their earlier mistakes.

Deanimator

September 23, 2012, 09:56 PM

Thankfully, the people who were supporting the above have since gained their senses and have come out the strongest against Holder and Obama, having learned from their earlier mistakes.
The same people who were supporting an AWB before Fast and Furious are still doing so. The death of Brian Terry is UTTERLY inconsequential to them.

Neverwinter

September 23, 2012, 10:00 PM

The same people who were supporting an AWB before Fast and Furious are still doing so. The death of Brian Terry is UTTERLY inconsequential to them.Read the post again, since the point regarding the support for being uncooperative with Congressional investigational committees had gone completely over your head. Feel free to address the content, rather than rambling against something completely unrelated.

Deanimator

September 23, 2012, 10:09 PM

Read the post again, since the point regarding the support for being uncooperative with Congressional investigational committees had gone completely over your head. Feel free to address the content, rather than rambling against something completely unrelated.
Fast and Furious had NO purpose beyond manufacturing support for a new AWB. Those who support Fast and Furious support a new AWB. White House documents are being withheld to conceal the extent of the collusion.

Old Fuff

September 23, 2012, 10:33 PM

I agree with the above post. If the Obama Adminstration had been as pure as fresh driven snow, there would be no good reason to not release the requested documents to the Justice Department's own Inspector General. In doing so (if they were without guilt) the charges now being made in this thread would have been mostly moot. As it is they have been made even stronger. Those that are now defending the White House have at best, questionable motives.

Neverwinter

September 23, 2012, 10:34 PM

White House documents are being withheld to conceal the extent of the collusion.I'm sure you could get some people to buy the idea that your refusal to submit to a strip search(see post 41 (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8421465&postcount=41) for context) is to conceal the extent of collusion with the roommate's ex-wife.

It doesn't make it rational.

Deanimator

September 23, 2012, 10:46 PM

It doesn't make it rational.
The defenses of Fast and Furious and the subsequent coverup are rational, just not honest.

There is no RATIONAL explanation for Fast and Furious beyond the manufacture of support for a new AWB.

There is no RATIONAL explanation for the refusal to provide documents related to the LIES told by Executive Branch personnel other than a desire to conceal evidence of the degree of knowledge and participation by Executive Branch personnel.

ALL defenses of Fast and Furious and the subsequent coverup are rooted SOLELY in deceit.

Those who directed the operation are unwilling to reveal that they were willing to trade Brian Terry's life for a renewed AWB.

Old Fuff

September 24, 2012, 12:00 AM

Nobody ask the president to submit to a strip search....

What was requested was certain documents that were specifically tied to the Fast & Furious operation. It was the Administration's position that neither the President or Attorney General had any involvment in it, or knowledge of it until a certain time. Had the documents been presented they might (or might not) have made the issue clear, one way or the other. A reasonable person might conclude that if the White House had nothing to conceal, releasing the requested documents would work in their favor. Not doing so would at best, strongly suggest guilt. The President's supporters may try to evade what is an obvious truth, but they are unlikely to make a sale.

Deanimator

September 24, 2012, 06:32 AM

President's supporters may try to evade what is an obvious truth, but they are unlikely to make a sale.
The only takers will be those who supported the fundamental premise of Fast and Furious, namely that there is a need for a new AWB and that it justifies ANYTHING done in furtherance of it, including the deaths of Brian Terry and HUNDREDS of Mexicans.

Shadow 7D

September 25, 2012, 09:20 PM

My understanding of exec privilage was that the PRIVATE ADVICE of those close, and the personal thoughts which formed the basis of a course of action, NOT be made public and prevent 'honest' discourse from happening for fear of what was said behind closed doors getting out/ second guessing

well, we know what happened
if there was NO knowledge (from a whitehouse that sees fit to leak secret information like water through a sieve)

then why hasn't there been a PEEP??? surely there would be someone who was willing to toss those emails into the bag when they were handing out new foreign strategies....

k_dawg

September 25, 2012, 09:45 PM

If Obama had nothing to do with F&F, then there exist no documents pertaining to F&F which are entitled to Executive Priveledge.

As indicated in this report, the Inspector General's report lists upwards of 100,000 relevent documents, not entitled to Executive Privledge, yet which the DOJ/ATF refused to share with Congress. This is in addition to the President's own promise to have the most transparent administration, and Nancy Pelosi's claim to 'drain the swamp' of corruption.

Of course, retraction or no retraction, Holder commited perjury during his testimony to Congress.

Our 'impartial' media can't even ask Harry Reid about his blatant lies over Mitt Romney's tax returns. So we'll never see the facts with regards to F&F as they have effectively suppressed the story.

NW appears to either be a poor troll, a poor schill or suffering from Stockholm syndrome. We should stop feeding him, and simply have pity for him.

Deanimator

September 26, 2012, 02:18 PM

a poor schill
Google "American Hunters and Shooters Association" (AHSA) and you'll know everything you need to know in that regard.

Neverwinter

September 26, 2012, 11:42 PM

Nobody ask the president to submit to a strip search....

What was requested was certain documents that were specifically tied to the Fast & Furious operation. It was the Administration's position that neither the President or Attorney General had any involvment in it, or knowledge of it until a certain time. Had the documents been presented they might (or might not) have made the issue clear, one way or the other. A reasonable person might conclude that if the White House had nothing to conceal, releasing the requested documents would work in their favor. Not doing so would at best, strongly suggest guilt. The President's supporters may try to evade what is an obvious truth, but they are unlikely to make a sale.Of course no one is asking for the president to submit to a strip search, any more than people are talking about cutting up babies when talking about King Solomon. It's an allegory which works even if you decrease the intrusiveness of the request. The implausibility of the search request achieving the alleged results doesn't make sense given the other information was available.

I've taken the liberty of plugging in the values for your post below.
"Had the strip search been consented to it might (or might not) have made the issue clear, one way or the other. A reasonable person might conclude that if you had nothing to conceal, consenting to the strip search would work in your favor. Not doing so would at best, strongly suggest guilt. Your counsel may try to evade what is an obvious truth, but they are unlikely to make a sale."

If Obama had nothing to do with F&F, then there exist no documents pertaining to F&F which are entitled to Executive Priveledge.

NW appears to either be a poor troll, a poor schill or suffering from Stockholm syndrome. We should stop feeding him, and simply have pity for him.
Taking that approach to executive privilege results in some unusual conclusions in regards to other recent uses of executive privilege, such as Katrina responses, US attorney firing, and Abu Ghraib mistreatment.

Labelling me makes sense from a denier's point of view, since it means that one doesn't have to address the cognitive dissonance and logical fallacies expressed in their posts. Labelling means that they don't have to even consider how their premise depends on an assumption shown not to be true in the report. When they make posts like "Fast and Furious had NO purpose beyond manufacturing support for a new AWB. Those who support Fast and Furious support a new AWB. White House documents are being withheld to conceal the extent of the collusion.", they don't have to think about the fact that their argument hinges on Affirming the Consequent (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html). It's the F&F version of Kanye West proclaiming that "George Bush doesn't care about black people" because of the mistakes made with Katrina response. Responding to a post concerning the history of unresponsiveness to Congressional investigations with the above fallacy is more of the avoidance pattern, because it means examining the inapplicability of their assumptions regarding guilt and motive of an incident. Either that or it was a deliberate, malicious misdirection, but if I'm going to afford the executive branch the courtesy of Hanlon's Razor, there's no reason not to give it up here.

Deanimator

September 27, 2012, 06:40 AM

Taking that approach to executive privilege results in some unusual conclusions in regards to other recent uses of executive privilege, such as Katrina responses, US attorney firing, and Abu Ghraib mistreatment.
Changing the subject won't raise Brian Terry... and hundreds of Mexicans from the dead.

But as I noted previously, those committed to a new assault weapon ban will defend literally ANYTHING done in furtherance of one, including providing guns to murderous drug cartels.

Kiln

September 27, 2012, 06:45 AM

Changing the subject won't raise Brian Terry... and hundreds of Mexicans from the dead.

But as I noted previously, those committed to a new assault weapon ban will defend literally ANYTHING done in furtherance of one, including providing guns to murderous drug cartels.
QFT.

Neverwinter

September 27, 2012, 09:57 AM

Changing the subject won't raise Brian Terry... and hundreds of Mexicans from the dead.
It's the same subject. The assumption of guilt as a result of the application of executive privilege. One that you curiously(or not so curiously, based on the labelling paragraph from post 55) seem to be ignoring. Just like all of the other fallacies that you refuse to acknowledge or defend.

Deanimator

September 27, 2012, 02:22 PM

The assumption of guilt as a result of the application of executive privilege.
The duplicitous attempt to claim executive privilege is only the cherry on top of the festering mound of guilt.

EVERYTHING that Obama and Holder have done in the ENTIRE stinking mess points directly at culpability, from the before the fact claim of "working under the radar", to the after the fact attempts to conceal what Obama and Holder knew and when they knew it.

But yet again, for those who support a new assault weapons ban, literally NOTHING done in furtherance of one will EVER be criticized.

Neverwinter

September 28, 2012, 12:29 AM

EVERYTHING that Obama and Holder have done in the ENTIRE stinking mess points directly at culpability, from the before the fact claim of "working under the radar", to the after the fact attempts to conceal what Obama and Holder knew and when they knew it.

But yet again, for those who support a new assault weapons ban, literally NOTHING done in furtherance of one will EVER be criticized.
By your definition, the Terrys are in support of a new assault weapons ban because they refuse to criticize Holder and Obama for organizing F&F. The death of Brian Terry and the hundreds of Mexicans are inconsequential to them because they support the conclusions of the report.

Deanimator

September 28, 2012, 06:30 AM

By your definition, the Terrys are in support of a new assault weapons ban because they refuse to criticize Holder and Obama for organizing F&F. The death of Brian Terry and the hundreds of Mexicans are inconsequential to them because they support the conclusions of the report.
I don't recall seeing any STATEMENTS by them supporting the conclusions of the report. Can you post a link?

By the way, did they make any statements indicating a desire for the White House and Justice Department to stop stonewalling?

Fremmer

September 28, 2012, 09:57 PM

Lol sorry, there's no "we don't want them to know how we coordinated and worked together to stonewall a congressional investigation" privilege, and repeatedly referring to that as an internal deliberations executive privilege doesn't make it any less legally invalid. Obama sounds just like nixon.

The american people deserve to know what obama knew and planned. Why is obama using an absurd legal argument to justify the cover up? Just produce the documents so that everyone knows the truth.

Carl N. Brown

September 29, 2012, 06:47 AM

The DOJ OIG was allowed to see tens of thousands of DOJ documents that were withheld from the Committee. The Holder DOJ trusted the DOJ's IG. So the Obama WH witholding documents from its own DOJ Inspector General is the tactical equivalent of a civilian refusing to submit to a strip search in a investigation? I don't buy the analogy. Its more like the police chief refusing to talk to his internal affairs office.

Other topic, expanding my earlier observation:
Couple that desire for a new AWB with Obama & Felipe Calderon's Rose Garden appeals for an AWB to stop bloodshed from Calderon's Mexican Drug War, ratcheted up by him sending in the Army in Dec 2006, and the repetition of the 90% myth, debunked by DHS and Strategic Forecasting, it is easy to imagine a dishonest regime pulling a "false flag" operation. Right now there is more suspicion than evidence.

I will add to my earlier posts that when Calderon met with Bush, both agreed that the increase in drug war homicides was a good thing because the vast majority were drug cartel members. The first strike when Calderon sent the Army into his home state Dec 2006 resulted in 500 cartel deaths. This was viewed as winning the War on Drugs. Collateral damage of Operation Michoacan were the deaths of ~100 policemen and ~60 soldiers.

The Mexican newspaper El Universal began publishing a running total of deaths attributed to drug cartel violence starting when Calderon mobilized the Army in Operation Michoacan in Dec 2006, the start of the current Mexican Drug War.

The gun deaths and drug war deaths are subsets of the Total Homicides.

(Notice the Drug War Death totals per year for 2008-2010 exceeded the number of Mexican gun homicides for those years. Mexican drug gangsters are killing thousands of people each year with weapons other than firearms.)

16 Apr 2009 Mexican President Felipe Calderon appeared before news media with US President Barak Obama and blamed the accelerated death rate in Mexico on the sunset of the US Assault Weapons Ban AWB in 2004. Obama stated his support for renewing the Assault Weapons ban, blaming the US Congress and gun rights resistance. Sep 2009 Obama appointed Dennis Burke, credited by Sen Dennis DeConcini with being the architect of the AWB, as US Attorney for Phoenix. Oct 2009 the discredited tactic of gunwalking, ordered stopped by the Bush Administration 6 Oct 2007, was re-instated by Phoenix ATF SAC William Newell (who had been honcho under Wide Receiver (2006-2007), Hernandez (2007) and Medrano (2008)). Newell was operating in a total vacuum, and the renewal of gunwalking goes no higher than Newell and Phoenix ATF and Burke and Phoenix USAO, and it was never an attempt to promote the AWB or bolster the 90% Myth by putting more US guns in cartel hands to show up in crime scene traces.

How credibile is Burke? 15 Dec 2010 the day after Brian Terry was shot, Burke emailed Wilkinson at DOJ HQ that two guns at the scene were OF&F guns sold in Phoenix. When Burke met Terry's family three months later, Burke told them that the guns were sold at a store in Texas. And of course any possible communication between DOJ and the WH is off limits, because the WH did not directly communicate with Phoenix. What communications we do have between Phoenix. DOJ and the public show the players like Burke are liars.

Sky

September 29, 2012, 12:31 PM

(Notice the Drug War Death totals per year for 2008-2010 exceeded the number of Mexican gun homicides for those years. Mexican drug gangsters are killing thousands of people each year with weapons other than firearms.)

16 Apr 2009 Mexican President Felipe Calderon appeared before news media with US President Barak Obama and blamed the accelerated death rate in Mexico on the sunset of the US Assault Weapons Ban AWB in 2004. Obama stated his support for renewing the Assault Weapons ban, blaming the US Congress and gun rights resistance. Sep 2009 Obama appointed Dennis Burke, credited by Sen Dennis DeConcini with being the architect of the AWB, as US Attorney for Phoenix. Oct 2009 the discredited tactic of gunwalking, ordered stopped by the Bush Administration 6 Oct 2007, was re-instated by Phoenix ATF SAC William Newell (who had been honcho under Wide Receiver (2006-2007), Hernandez (2007) and Medrano (2008)). Newell was operating in a total vacuum, and the renewal of gunwalking goes no higher than Newell and Phoenix ATF and Burke and Phoenix USAO, and it was never an attempt to promote the AWB or bolster the 90% Myth by putting more US guns in cartel hands to show up in crime scene traces.

How credibile is Burke? 15 Dec 2010 the day after Brian Terry was shot, Burke emailed Wilkinson at DOJ HQ that two guns at the scene were OF&F guns sold in Phoenix. When Burke met Terry's family three months later, Burke told them that the guns were sold at a store in Texas. And of course any possible communication between DOJ and the WH is off limits, because the WH did not directly communicate with Phoenix. What communications we do have between Phoenix. DOJ and the public show the players like Burke are liars.
__________________

Good post Carl I have read the same thing from different sources. Does not make it so but at least people who work off of evidence instead of blind faith have more to work with to arrive at a conclusion on what transpired. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

k_dawg

September 30, 2012, 12:11 AM

If Obama or the White House had nothing to do with F&F, then none of the documents regarding F&F legally enjoy Executive Priveledge.

The Oath of Office ends with " preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"

Somehow I fail to see 'except for the 2nd amendment'. Or the 4th, and heck, the 8th.

Luger_carbine

September 30, 2012, 01:53 AM

Univision's documentary airs sometime today (Sunday)

I like the fact that as a news agency their primary concern is reporting the news unlike the media in the U.S. who seem primarily concerned with not reporting anything that might hurt Barack Obama's re-election chances.

Kevin O’Reilly ?? Oh ya what ever happened to that guy - didn't he go to the Middle East or something like that ?

This last Thursday Kevin O’Reilly got a letter from Sen Grassley and Representative Issa calling him in for an interview and threatening a subpeona if he doesn't.

The reporters in Mexico are not letting this drop and they are asking the obvious questions:

“...up to 100 Mexicans might have died and also American agent Brian Terry. There’s a report that 14 agents were responsible for the operation but shouldn’t the attorney general, Eric Holder, he should have known about that and if he didn’t, should you fire him?”

However, despite the media claims about the Inspector General’s findings, lawmakers and critics of the investigation are already pointing to fact errors in the report. Some analysts who have followed the scandal closely are even calling the whole investigation a “whitewash” — especially because of the senior officials who refused to cooperate and the factual mistakes already uncovered thus far.

The Inspector General report also claims, for example, that Holder "did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011." However, as The New American and other sources have documented, the disgraced Attorney General was publicly bragging about the deadly scheme as early as 2009

"The Obama administration clearly hoped that the Department of Justice’s Inspector General report on Operation Fast and Furious would be the last word on the scandal. which has been tied to hundreds of deaths in Mexico and the murders of two American law-enforcement officials. However, a new report from Univision to be broadcast tomorrow, previewed here by ABC News, may put the issue back on the front pages. One source called Univision’s findings the “holy grail” that Congressional investigators have been seeking."

DOJ OIG Report:
We determined that Attorney General Holder did not learn about
Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011 and was
not aware of allegations of “gun walking” in the investigation until February.

Even that makes the 4 Feb letter a stink bomb, not to mention Holder's Holder's May testimony about knowing about it only a few weeks.

CBS News Timeline:
May 3, 2011: At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on an unrelated topic, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asks Attorney General Holder when he first heard of Fast and Furious. Holder answers: "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." That answer is later called into question based on memos directed to Holder nearly a year earlier.

k_dawg

September 30, 2012, 09:48 PM

The Mexican media is more concerned about illegal activity by the US GOv't than the US media. :-/

President Barack Obama appointed Cheryl Saban, wife of the owner of Univision, as U.S. representative to the United Nations,

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/01/univision-report-connects-operation-fast-and-furious-scandal-to-murders-of-mexican-teenagers/ is a verbal description of the Univision article.

I was pleased with Univision keeping the F&F story in the spot light for many reasons…. It was some investigative journalism at it's best; kinda like the old days…but NOW I don’t know if there were other nefarious reasons which are all part of a larger plan? Yes I know, time to pull out the Tin Foil but, the timing for me is troublesome or put another way "makes a fellow wonder". I would not be surprised if we do not see the footage from the Univision broadcast at some future date for some cause and effect towards an end that we may not like. Just saying.....I suppose anything is possible or much ado about nothing..

Old Fuff

October 2, 2012, 11:40 AM

With sadness, I am posting the news that in the early A.M. on Tuesday, Oct. 2nd. another gunfight between Mexican smugglers and the Border Patrol occurred southeast of Bisbee, Arizona. One Border Patrolman was killed, while another was wounded. Fortunately it is reported that his wounds are not life threatening. At this time no additional details are available.

This incident may or may not be related to the Fast & Furious scandal, but it is a reminder of the risk these officers take on a daily basis, and the total failure of the Federal Government to take any serious steps to secure our southern border.

Sky

October 2, 2012, 11:47 AM

With sadness, I am posting the news that in the early A.M. on Tuesday, Oct. 2nd. another gunfight between Mexican smugglers and the Border Patrol occurred southeast of Bisbee, Arizona. One Border Patrolman was killed,

I think it absolutely is connected. While the particular firearm may or may not be one that 'walked', the violence clearly escalated due to F&F. And being heavily armed have made the cartel's bolder.

Did you see the pictures of some of the firearms which were allowed to go into Mexico? We're talking some seriously expensive hardware, FN SCARs in 7.62 NATO, etc!
e.g. higher firepower than which we allow our own officers to have.

Shadow 7D

October 2, 2012, 07:14 PM

I think it absolutely is connected. While the particular firearm may or may not be one that 'walked', the violence clearly escalated due to F&F. And being heavily armed have made the cartel's bolder.

Did you see the pictures of some of the firearms which were allowed to go into Mexico? We're talking some seriously expensive hardware, FN SCARs in 7.62 NATO, etc!
e.g. higher firepower than which we allow our own officers to have.
No, those $25 M16's are FA, carried in the patrol car, and what they were buying, isn't
why they were getting guns this way IDK, cartels have been reported to be buying stuff by the connex load from china and Africa.

Neverwinter

October 6, 2012, 03:53 AM

The DOJ OIG was allowed to see tens of thousands of DOJ documents that were withheld from the Committee. The Holder DOJ trusted the DOJ's IG. So the Obama WH witholding documents from its own DOJ Inspector General is the tactical equivalent of a civilian refusing to submit to a strip search in a investigation? I don't buy the analogy. Its more like the police chief refusing to talk to his internal affairs office.

If we're going to use that sort of analogy, it's like the mayor not talking to the internal affairs office of the police department. The police chief hasn't been implicated in all of the police department documents. Why would it make sense that the mayor would be involved in orchestrating misconduct if his conduit into the department isn't involved?

The Inspector General report also claims, for example, that Holder "did not learn about Operation Fast and Furious until late January or early February 2011." However, as The New American and other sources have documented, the disgraced Attorney General was publicly bragging about the deadly scheme as early as 2009
[citation needed] (Not that I expect it from The New American)

I don't recall seeing any STATEMENTS by them supporting the conclusions of the report. Can you post a link?

By the way, did they make any statements indicating a desire for the White House and Justice Department to stop stonewalling?
http://honorbrianterry.com/news/the-family-of-slain-border-patrol-agent-brian-terry-reacts-to-the-doj-oig-report-on-operation-fast-and-furious-and-asks-for-action-by-attorney-general-eric-holder

They said that the executive privilege documents should be released because it might further show the wrongdoing by those blamed in the report.

Is the fact that they are not blaming Obama and Holder for running F&F make them supporters of an AWB? That is what you seem to imply with your post: EVERYTHING that Obama and Holder have done in the ENTIRE stinking mess points directly at culpability, from the before the fact claim of "working under the radar", to the after the fact attempts to conceal what Obama and Holder knew and when they knew it.

But yet again, for those who support a new assault weapons ban, literally NOTHING done in furtherance of one will EVER be criticized.

By not ignoring the facts of the report and continuing to claim that Holder and Obama were running F&F, one is supporting an AWB by not criticizing them.

Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were running F&F if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no orchestration? Anyone? Or is this all about beliefs instead of evidence? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just another God-of-the-gaps argument where the faith hides under the shelter of whatever has not yet dispelled it?

Davek1977

October 6, 2012, 07:23 AM

Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were running F&F if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no orchestration? Anyone? Or is this all about beliefs instead of evidence? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just another God-of-the-gaps argument where the faith hides under the shelter of whatever has not yet dispelled it? Without taking the IG's report as gospel, can you PROVE that the leadership of this administration DID NOT have any ulterior motives with F&F? The availbility of some information doesn't preclude the possibility of further information that could possibly link the President and or AG to having knowledge as to the operation. Your question, though, is impossible to answer without first seeing the documents "protected" under Executive Privilege and what what they consist of. I'm not going to guess as to what the contents are, and then estimate my assumed response to whether or not I think its accurate. Thats putting the cart far ahead of the horse. Let me examine the documents, see if there are obvious holes to the story or not, and go from there. Asking somoene to predict their response to reading a document or documents they are clueless as to the contents of is just silly and serves no purpose whatsoever. You can't judge the accuracy of a report one hasn't read any better than one can measure a group he or she hasn't shot yet. Its impossible.

Deanimator

October 6, 2012, 09:43 AM

By not ignoring the [self-admittedly incomplete] facts of the report
There, fixed that for you.

The only ones who think the report exonerates Obama and Holder are those who support a new AWB, the entire PURPOSE of Fast and Furious.

Neverwinter

October 6, 2012, 11:50 AM

Without taking the IG's report as gospel, can you PROVE that the leadership of this administration DID NOT have any ulterior motives with F&F? The availbility of some information doesn't preclude the possibility of further information that could possibly link the President and or AG to having knowledge as to the operation.
You're asking to prove a negative. You might as well be asking to prove unicorns don't exist.
Your question, though, is impossible to answer without first seeing the documents "protected" under Executive Privilege and what what they consist of. I'm not going to guess as to what the contents are, and then estimate my assumed response to whether or not I think its accurate. Thats putting the cart far ahead of the horse. Let me examine the documents, see if there are obvious holes to the story or not, and go from there. Asking somoene to predict their response to reading a document or documents they are clueless as to the contents of is just silly and serves no purpose whatsoever. You can't judge the accuracy of a report one hasn't read any better than one can measure a group he or she hasn't shot yet. Its impossible.
I apologize if you are not familiar with the concept of a thought experiment. The idea is to think through the conclusions of a hypothetical situation in order to better understand our thinking. You may think that the discussion of whether a cat in a box is dead or alive is silly, but it does have value.

For the sake of the experiment, assume that is a lack of communication concerning gun walking. This means that there is a distinct absence of evidence supporting your hypothesis. Does your hypothesis change now that your knowledge has changed? Why or why not? Do the gaps that you injected into the experiment still remain your support for the hypothesis?

There, fixed that for you.

The only ones who think the report exonerates Obama and Holder are those who support a new AWB, the entire PURPOSE of Fast and Furious.
So Brian Terry's family. Got it. Why don't they care about justice for their son and those hundreds of Mexicans, being used like that for political gain?

Sorry, I'm not the one who made the claim that Obama and Holder orchestrated gun walking. It's the people who put forth a claim who have to support that claim with evidence, as opposed to faith.

Zoogster

October 6, 2012, 09:40 PM

The timing of everything quite perfectly coincides with changing political needs to support additional firearm restrictions.
From early calls by Holder for a new AWB not long after taking office. From Obama assuring they were working behind the scenes.
To the political pressure for a new AWB by tying cartel violence to the availability of American firearms.
Including calls from the president of Mexico, and various politicians especially internationally applying such pressure, with clear allies in the United States.
Pressure applied steadily to slowly win over more of the population over time, because the nation was so pro-gun after the Obama election that it couldn't be done right away without first tying gun rights in America to horrible things in the minds of the public and repeating it steadily and often to make it seem more true.
Part of this was the often repeated 90% of illegal guns come from the United States.
To the debunking of the often spouted 90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US (implying civilian market) resulting in the gains they worked hard for in passing a new AWB being all but lost.
Along with the fact that even many of the guns that are from the US are actually select fire weapons sold to the Mexican government that make their way to cartels becoming more public knowledge.
Pictures of grenades, grenade launchers, factory full autos, rocket launchers, and a host of other weapons clearly not from the American civilian market common in cartel seized weapon caches being more scrutinized.
To implementation of a program which had it not gone bad allowing them to demonstrate 'proof' that American firearm rights were resulting in guns going to the bad guys. Which certainly would help in trying to rebuild more support for a new AWB. (Even if it required forcing FFLs to make sales they never would have allowed to proceed if not told by the ATF they had to.)

There is even more subtle details, like who was contacting who when certain key events were unfolding.
Sure they could have just been talking about completely unrelated things...

The time line is pretty coincidental. Requiring them to try to allude it is a continuation of an old Bush program (it is not) just to throw the timeline off.
Now the justice department investigates itself and concludes Eric Holder its leader has no ties (even after he is already in contempt for lying before Congress) just in time to wrap things up. That it was just some guys in Arizona doing their own thing and everything has been resolved.

Shadow 7D

October 6, 2012, 09:54 PM

Neverwinter, you must really LOVE obumbles
I mean, like what gives,

so we all get you are wearing blinders
the OIG report says it does not have access to documents that COULD be very vital

this isn't TIN FOIL HAT territory, this is eye glasses and head scratching territory, where people go 'now why in the hell would the do that or say that if they have nothing to hide'

that leads to honest conclusion there is something to hide.
you tell me what they are hiding, Oh wait, your line is blinders... NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, MOVE ALONG.....

BTW, are just here to stir the poop
I gather that you don't value RKBA
after all, you sign you post with this
Guns don't kill people, racist vigilantes kill people

Strange, I find that to be the MOST racist and intolerant statement I have encountered in quite a while
but then, the entire thing was MANUFACTURED by racists, race baiters, and leftist media and ANTI GUN organizations.... (that these just happen to be the same...)

You are not wearing blinders,
you are all 3 monkeys
blind, deaf and dumb

Fremmer

October 6, 2012, 11:40 PM

Actually, you need to explain the specific legal basis of your privilege claim. Because I don't think it is real, and we deserve the truth about what happened.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 02:52 AM

From early calls by Holder for a new AWB not long after taking office. From Obama assuring they were working behind the scenes.
To the political pressure for a new AWB by tying cartel violence to the availability of American firearms.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/14/national-rifle-association/barack-obama-coming-after-guns-under-radar-nra-say/
"To recap: The Washington Post reported that Sarah Brady said Obama told her his administration is "working on it," likely referring to gun control (in what way is unclear in the article). And Brady then tells the Post Obama said, "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The quote then gets distorted by the NRA to "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’""

Part of this was the often repeated 90% of illegal guns come from the United States.
To the debunking of the often spouted 90% of illegal guns in Mexico come from the US (implying civilian market) resulting in the gains they worked hard for in passing a new AWB being all but lost.
Along with the fact that even many of the guns that are from the US are actually select fire weapons sold to the Mexican government that make their way to cartels becoming more public knowledge.
Pictures of grenades, grenade launchers, factory full autos, rocket launchers, and a host of other weapons clearly not from the American civilian market common in cartel seized weapon caches being more scrutinized.

To implementation of a program which had it not gone bad allowing them to demonstrate 'proof' that American firearm rights were resulting in guns going to the bad guys. Which certainly would help in trying to rebuild more support for a new AWB. (Even if it required forcing FFLs to make sales they never would have allowed to proceed if not told by the ATF they had to.)
This is what is curious about the arguments that I've seen so far. They say that F&F is at fault for Terry and countless Mexicans' deaths, when they know that American guns constitute only a miniscule fraction of the guns used by bad guys, and F&F guns being a smaller portion of that. It's almost like they're trying to capitalize on the deaths for political gain even though their argument directly contradicts other information that they know.

There is even more subtle details, like who was contacting who when certain key events were unfolding.
Sure they could have just been talking about completely unrelated things...
Agreed. The report demonstrates that communication was happening at the state level.

Now the justice department investigates itself and concludes Eric Holder its leader has no ties (even after he is already in contempt for lying before Congress) just in time to wrap things up. That it was just some guys in Arizona doing their own thing and everything has been resolved.
The old "internal affairs offices are corrupt" claim gets trotted out again.

Does the Feb Congressional testimony count as perjury if he was recounting the truth as was presented to him? Is it perjury if you don't know that your statements are based on incomplete information?

so we all get you are wearing blinders
the OIG report says it does not have access to documents that COULD be very vital

this isn't TIN FOIL HAT territory, this is eye glasses and head scratching territory, where people go 'now why in the hell would the do that or say that if they have nothing to hide'

that leads to honest conclusion there is something to hide.
you tell me what they are hiding, Oh wait, your line is blinders... NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS, MOVE ALONG.....

I see all of the previous discussion of reasonable search has gone over your head. So far no one has been brave enough to answer the thought experiment which was just posed regarding their reaction to a hypothetical release of the documents and not finding any communication showing collaboration on gun walking. Even if there weren't the executive privilege claim, why should anyone cooperate with such people who argue in bad faith?
What is the point of providing the long form birth certificate when the short form isn't sufficient for them?

<redacting ad hominem and direct disobedience to the forum dictate regarding posts about a certain case>
Thank you for your assistance. ;)

Actually, you need to explain the specific legal basis of your privilege claim. Because I don't think it is real, and we deserve the truth about what happened.
See the following article about executive privilege from the Chair in Law at the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law
Why contempt case against Holder may be doomed (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/opinion/shane-holder-contempt/index.html)

Zoogster

October 7, 2012, 09:21 AM

It's almost like they're trying to capitalize on the deaths for political gain

Absolutely, Republicans saw a potential way to use a scandal to their advantage. That is why it got coverage to begin with. Not because it was a crooked scheme designed to reduce American firearm rights. But just because that is why is has recieved much coverage doesn't detract from it being done.

And there is no doubt it was done intentionally to increase firearm laws.
Dennis Burke, lawyer that played a large role in passing the first AWB, and well connected to Obama (part of transition team to White House after the election) who then went to Arizona and became US Attorney, the man (then given?) ATF agents to use at his disposal, and who the agents asked for permission almost every step of the way....Clearly directing them in an official capacity.
Why were the ATF agents so intent in asking permission on this program every step of the way? Higher ups clearly drilled it into them that they were taking instructions from Burke. Who made that happen?
Burke made it quite clear in conversation that the program would be used to further gun control, specifically assault weapon restrictions.

He knew these guns were being used in some crimes to murder people in Mexico after being intentionally allowed to walk across the border (which really upset some of the ATF agents who were being directed by Burke at the local level), which would help make the case for gun control:

Burke:
It's a T-III investigation that we have been working w/ATF for a long time and IRS is all over some money laundering charges. It’s going to bring a lot of attention to straw purchasing of assault weapons. Some of the weapons bought by these clowns in Arizona have been directly traced to murders of elected officials in Mexico by the Cartels, so Katie-bar-the-door when we unveil this baby.

The political timeline, combined with the close connectioned of Burke. If the administration or Holder had decided to get something done along the border, who would they have used to make it happen? Someone in Texas? California? No, the prime choice available would have been Burke sitting there in Arizona. Give him federal agents (the ATF had to ask him for permission to do many basic things they can typically do on their own throughout the program) and let him make it happen.

Fast and Furious was going to be used for gun control, that is not in question.

alsaqr

October 7, 2012, 10:26 AM

Neither Grassley nor Issa say that Fast and Furious originated at the white house or DOJ. Fast and Furious originated with the career bureaucrats in the Phoenix office of the BATFE. The AG for AZ approved of the plan. The plan was blessed up the food chain and and it morphed into a monster involving several federal agencies.

The ATF Phoenix Field Division began Operation Fast and Furious in the fall of 2009 after suspicious weapons purchases led agents to the discovery of an apparent Phoenix-based arms trafficking syndicate.

Having been encouraged to devise grander strategies to stop the transfers of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, the Phoenix based agents devised a strategy that went beyond simple arrests or weapons confiscations. They would allow the U.S.-based associates of a Mexican drug cartel to continue acquiring firearms uninterrupted.

In doing so, they hoped the weapons, after they were recovered at crime scenes in Mexico, could be traced and linked to cartel operatives including possible high-level financiers, suppliers, and possibly even king-pins.

alsaqr

October 7, 2012, 10:50 AM

With sadness, I am posting the news that in the early A.M. on Tuesday, Oct. 2nd. another gunfight between Mexican smugglers and the Border Patrol occurred southeast of Bisbee, Arizona.

The FBI says the agents fired on each other.

Members did not respond to the tripped sensor as a team: They were split up. Ivie may have fired on the other two agents? See bold.

Three agents fired unknowingly at each other after they separately responded to a tripped sensor in a rugged canyon in southeastern Arizona, Cochise County Acting Sheriff Rod Rothrock told The Times on Saturday.

FBI officials said a preliminary investigation showed that Border Agent Nicholas J. Ivie died in a "friendly fire" shooting that only involved the agents. Another agent was shot in the buttocks and ankle and is recovering at home. A third agent was not injured. Authorities have not released their names.

Ivie, a six-year agent, was shot while he and two other colleagues on horseback patrolled an area a few miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, between Naco and Bisbee. The area is considered a corridor for drug and human smuggling near the Mule Mountains.

The three agents had communicated with each other and knew they were all in the area. Ivie was about 20 yards away from the other two agents and “interpreted defensive postures from the other as aggressive postures,” Rothrock told the Arizona Daily Star, an account he confirmed with The Times.

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 11:51 AM

So Brian Terry's family. Got it. Why don't they care about justice for their son and those hundreds of Mexicans, being used like that for political gain?
Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans were KILLED for political gain. Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.

alsaqr

October 7, 2012, 01:38 PM

Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.

At the end of the day Americans insatiable appetite for dope is responsible for that. If there was no demand for dope in the US there would be few killings in Mexico.

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 02:08 PM

At the end of the day Americans insatiable appetite for dope is responsible for that. If there was no demand for dope in the US there would be few killings in Mexico.
Demand for drugs is responsible for drug trafficking, not discrete acts of murder.

"Americans" using dope didn't sent thousands of guns to criminal gangs in Mexico.

Obama and Holder did.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 02:33 PM

Absolutely, Republicans saw a potential way to use a scandal to their advantage. That is why it got coverage to begin with. Not because it was a crooked scheme designed to reduce American firearm rights. But just because that is why is has recieved much coverage doesn't detract from it being done.
As long as they're being honest about their motivations. When the first few posts in this thread focus on working on causing an impact on the next election rather than on criminal conviction, the motivation was already being hinted at.
The people against this supposed guilt-causing executive privilege had no problems maintaining their cognitive dissonance in the face of their previous positions where the president of their team remained clean in their mind when exercising executive privilege.

And there is no doubt it was done intentionally to increase firearm laws.
Dennis Burke, lawyer that played a large role in passing the first AWB, and well connected to Obama (part of transition team to White House after the election) who then went to Arizona and became US Attorney, the man (then given?) ATF agents to use at his disposal, and who the agents asked for permission almost every step of the way....Clearly directing them in an official capacity.
Why were the ATF agents so intent in asking permission on this program every step of the way? Higher ups clearly drilled it into them that they were taking instructions from Burke. Who made that happen?
Burke made it quite clear in conversation that the program would be used to further gun control, specifically assault weapon restrictions.

He knew these guns were being used in some crimes to murder people in Mexico after being intentionally allowed to walk across the border (which really upset some of the ATF agents who were being directed by Burke at the local level), which would help make the case for gun control:

The political timeline, combined with the close connectioned of Burke. If the administration or Holder had decided to get something done along the border, who would they have used to make it happen? Someone in Texas? California? No, the prime choice available would have been Burke sitting there in Arizona. Give him federal agents (the ATF had to ask him for permission to do many basic things they can typically do on their own throughout the program) and let him make it happen.

Fast and Furious was going to be used for gun control, that is not in question.
And you made a good case for Burke continuing his work toward an AWB. But your information is incomplete. If one does a search on "Dennis Burke transition team" and ignores the wingnut sites, you can get to http://www.opensecrets.org/obama/transition.php which show how various people including Burke were preferred for positions because of their donations.

Unfortunately, Grassley and Issa don't support your premises. See alsaqr's post for the link.

Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans were KILLED for political gain. Obama and Holder are responsible for THAT.
So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths? Because that goes against a lot of other information available. Then again, I addressed this particular cognitive dissonance earlier in the post. As mentioned before in the thread, if you're gong to pretend to be involved in a discussion, at least read the posts you're responding to.

Neither Grassley nor Issa say that Fast and Furious originated at the white house or DOJ. Fast and Furious originated with the career bureaucrats in the Phoenix office of the BATFE. The AG for AZ approved of the plan. The plan was blessed up the food chain and and it morphed into a monster involving several federal agencies.

Issa say as much in his 3 May, 2012 report. See page 4:

http://oversight.house.gov/wp-conten...nd-Furious.pdf
Thank you for that citation. The Terry family has already called for an investigation by Napolitano about the DHS component.

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 03:21 PM

So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths?
So, those guns tied to killings in Mexico were actually dropped by people on their way to hunting camps?

There was never ANY doubt that those in favor of a new AWB would say literally ANYTHING to justify an effort to impose one.

alsaqr

October 7, 2012, 03:34 PM

Demand for drugs is responsible for drug trafficking, not discrete acts of murder.

The demand for dope has caused a shooting war between rival dope cartels over the US dope franchise.

Yeah, what the federal government did in Fast and Furious is criminal and someone should be sent to prison. But we have this peculiar thing about being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Accusations on a website will not get that done.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 03:43 PM

So you're saying that the US is a fundamental source of guns to the cartels that were involved in those deaths? Because that goes against a lot of other information available. Then again, I addressed this particular cognitive dissonance earlier in the post. As mentioned before in the thread, if you're gong to pretend to be involved in a discussion, at least read the posts you're responding to.So, those guns tied to killings in Mexico were actually dropped by people on their way to hunting camps?

There was never ANY doubt that those in favor of a new AWB would say literally ANYTHING to justify an effort to impose one.
You're ducking the question and responded with the same self-affirmation of cognitive dissonance, just as I predicted. QED.

alsaqr

October 7, 2012, 03:54 PM

Its significant that career bureaucrats of the Phoenix BATFE who ran Wide Receiver also ran Fast and Furious. Think of Wide Receiver as a pilot program for Fast and Furious.

Does anyone else here find it ironic that neither Issa nor Grassley are calling for reform of the BATFE?

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 05:21 PM

You're ducking the question and responded with the same self-affirmation of cognitive dissonance, just as I predicted. QED.
Those who would impose another AWB support a whitewash of Fast and Furious.

No change.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 06:10 PM

Its significant that career bureaucrats of the Phoenix BATFE who ran Wide Receiver also ran Fast and Furious. Think of Wide Receiver as a pilot program for Fast and Furious.

Does anyone else here find it ironic that neither Issa nor Grassley are calling for reform of the BATFE?
Of course not, why would they do so when it produces useful innocents who make posts like Those who would impose another AWB support a whitewash of Fast and Furious.

No change.

F&F is a ticket to fame and party aggrandizement. Why should the deaths of Brian Terry and numerous Mexicans be prevented if they can be used to attempt to win elections?

Count down to Deanimator's Markov text generator post in 3.. 2.. 1..

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 06:36 PM

Why should the deaths of Brian Terry and numerous Mexicans be prevented if they can be used to attempt to win elections?
You'd have to ask Obama and Holder since they were willing to kill hundreds of people to curry favor with Josh Sugermann.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 06:58 PM

You'd have to ask Obama and Holder since they were willing to kill hundreds of people to curry favor with Josh Sugermann.Shouldn't you ask the people who orchestrated gun walking as rather than Obama and Holder? I mean, if we're going to actually address gun walking rather than just scoring points for elections as I mentioned.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 08:15 PM

Shouldn't you ask the people who orchestrated gun walking as rather than Obama and Holder?
Obama and Holder... INSTEAD OF... Obama and Holder?

That's the level of gibberish to which one must stoop in order to support a new AWB, and it's attempted justification, Fast and Furious.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 08:21 PM

Obama and Holder... INSTEAD OF... Obama and Holder?
You need to read the IG report and Grassley and Issa's statements if your fiction still stands. alsaqr posted it just a few posts above you, if you actually care about the facts. At this point, you have to work to convince the rest of us.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 08:30 PM

You need to read the IG report
You need to comprehend that I'm not in favor of an AWB OR a whitewash of hundreds of murders facilitated in furtherance of one.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 08:50 PM

You need to comprehend that I'm not in favor of an AWB OR a whitewash of hundreds of murders facilitated in furtherance of one.
And Grassley and Issa? Or do their statements shatter the fragile cognitive dissonance that you seem to have to reaffirm every few posts or so?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Deanimator

October 7, 2012, 09:38 PM

And Grassley and Issa?
Oh yeah, the CONTEMPT CITATION was just a pun.

No matter how much you want an AWB, that doesn't justify hundreds of murders.

Neverwinter

October 7, 2012, 09:57 PM

Oh yeah, the CONTEMPT CITATION was just a pun.

No matter how much you want an AWB, that doesn't justify hundreds of murders.
Do you know what the contempt charge is, and why it doesn't support the claims that you're making?

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Carl N. Brown

October 7, 2012, 10:51 PM

On the OIG Report: while Phoenix ATF SAC Newell, GS Voth and CA MacAllister cannot honestly deny what is documented about what they did, their lawyers claim that the Report depicts them as rogue agents who made up Fast and Furious on their own, when they claim there was more involvement at higher levels in the administration than has been released and they were just following orders like good ATF agents.

It will be interesting to see what comes of Newell, Voth and MacAllister as this goes on.

On other fronts, the close cooperation between DOJ Office of Public Affairs Director Tracy Schmaler and Media Matters staffers on Fast and Furious is shown through emails obtained in a FOIA request by Daily Caller. The emails show Schmaler and Media Matters swapping emails on how to discredit whistleblowers and critical reporters on Fast and Furious as stories were announced in various media, often spinning a Media Matters response favorable to DOJ after the stories were announced but before the stories were actually released.

It makes some people wonder what role Tracy Schmaler may have played in the Katerine Eban "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" CNN/Fortune 27 June 2012 article, released as the contempt citation was made against Holder. Eban's main claims there was (a) no gunwalking strategy in Fast and Furious at all and (b) gun traffickers like Uriel Patino who bought 723 guns under OF&F could not be arrested on federal straw purchase, dealing without a license or illegal arms export because lax Arizona state laws promoted by the GOP and NRA kept Phoenix ATF and USAO from enforcing federal gun laws (illustrating the need for a new AWB).

The OIG Report documents that (a) gunwalking was the primary tactic in OF&F and (b) buyers like Patino could have been stopped on the first straw purchase notification from the FFLs, but Phoenix ATF and USAO let the guns walk try to catch a "kingpin" (Tucson ATF and Phoenix FFLs told the IG that their experience was after the first FFL report of a cartel straw purchaser to ATF, that was the last time the FFL saw the straw unless the FFL was called to identify the straw at trial--illustrating the need to enforce existing federal kaw to handle the problems in OF&F).

I thought the Eban article was simply relying on Group VII Supervisor David Voth's lawyer's letter to the Committee, but finding out about Tracy Schmaler's cooperation with Media Matters to attempt to destroy Sipsey Street Irregulars blogger Mike Vanderboegh who was an early critic of OF&F and finding the same slander in Eban's article, I begin to wonder.

After all folks, we are dealing with Chicago politicians doing things the Chicago way in Washington D.C..

Deanimator

October 8, 2012, 06:29 AM

On the OIG Report: while Phoenix ATF SAC Newell, GS Voth and CA MacAllister cannot honestly deny what is documented about what they did, their lawyers claim that the Report depicts them as rogue agents who made up Fast and Furious on their own, when they claim there was more involvement at higher levels in the administration than has been released and they were just following orders like good ATF agents.
But don't you know? EVERYBODY is to blame, EXCEPT Obama and Holder. YOU have more responsibility than Obama and Holder. Why? You're not Obama or Holder.

It will be interesting to see what comes of Newell, Voth and MacAllister as this goes on.
In a word, NOTHING.

What happened to Lon Horiuchi? He actually killed a woman holding a baby. I hardly expect MORE to happen to them.

alsaqr

October 8, 2012, 08:16 AM

What happened to Lon Horiuchi? He actually killed a woman holding a baby. I hardly expect MORE to happen to them.

Bingo!!

Nothing will happen to any career bureaucrat or political appointee. In the end congress and the white house will have blustered and accomplished nothing. Another opportunity to revamp the long out of control BATFE will have passed.

Deanimator

October 8, 2012, 04:38 PM

Bingo!!

Nothing will happen to any career bureaucrat or political appointee. In the end congress and the white house will have blustered and accomplished nothing. Another opportunity to revamp the long out of control BATFE will have passed.
The BATFE needs to be "revamped" the way the Gestapo, Kempetai and Stasi were.

How are the AZ gun laws more lax than the federal gun laws?
And what happened to the supremacy clause?

Carl N. Brown

October 9, 2012, 10:37 AM

Quote:
How are the AZ gun laws more lax than the federal gun laws?

And what happened to the supremacy clause?

Arizona has no gun laws in areas of federal jurisdiction, like straw purchase, dealing without an FFL, or international trafficking.

The Supremacy Clause was most clearly explained in the Ruby Ridge trial, when Weaver defense attorney Spence asked FBI HRT Commander Rogers: when you drew up your Rules of Engagement, did you consider Idaho state law on use of deadly force? Rogers: NO. I don't operate under state law. I operate under federal law which supercedes all state law.

Under the Supremacy Clause, lax (actually no) Arizona state laws on FFLs and international trafficking COULD NOT stop Phoenix ATF and USAO from enforcing Federal Law. Fast and Furious LET guns walk in a scheme allegedly to lead Phoenix ATF and USAO to a cartel kingpin--in Mexico where they had no jurisdiction. I still can't fathom that premise.

But the Katherine Eban "The Truth about the Fast and Furious Scandal" Fortune/CNN 27 June 2012 picked up the theme (from Group VII Supervisor David Voth's lawyer's letter) that there was no deliberate gunwalking because lax Arizona gun laws prevented enforcement of fedeal law on straw buying, dealing w/o FFL and trafficking to Mexico. The DOJ OIG Report names Voth as one of the culprits to blame for F&F.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC bought that Eban/Fortune manure, and Zornick at The Nation stated he had ignored the Fast and Furious scandal until he read the Eban article. Both these left-wing ideologue ignoramuses pondefecated how Eban's Truth was unquestionable, that the GOP/NRA claim that F&F was a plot to further more gun control is the bunk (but guess what: they both claim that the failure of Fast and Furious points out the need for MORE GUN CONTROL, like laws on straw purchase, dealing w/o a license and international smuggling that supercede weak state laws promoted by GOP/NRA har har)

20-year ATF agents told the IG that before Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious, they had no problem interdicting straw purchasers, unlicensed dealers, or traffickers headed to Mexico. The Phoenix gun dealers who cooperated under F&F told the IG that the first time they reported a straw purchaser, that was the last time they saw the straw unless they were called to testify at trial. Arizona ATF said it was unusual to them under F&F to be told NOT to interdict, and gun dealers said they were told to contunue gun sales to straws as part of the investigation. It turned out the kingpin was a paid FBI informant.

The point should be, existing federal gun laws were not enforced, but the Left is using Fast and Furious to call for more gun laws, and to bring back the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48004064/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/hardball-chris-matthews-wednesday-june/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for Wednesday, June 27, 2012

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168673/facts-get-way-gops-fast-and-furious-investigation#
George Zornick, "Facts Get in the Way of GOP's Fast and Furious Investigation", The Nation, 29 Jun 2012.

k_dawg

October 10, 2012, 08:48 PM

Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were running F&F if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no orchestration?

Talk about the goal post being moved. I do not believe anyone has made the point that Obama was 'running' F&F. Not even Holder would have. Obama does not 'run' much of anything. He [ or any President ] does not 'run' much of anything. He primarily establishes policy, agendas and goals.

You display a profound ignorance for what the leaders of the Executive Branch actually do.

However, your question presupposes facts which are a logical impossibility:

If the documents show zero involvement by Obama, then they are not documents protected by 'executive priviledge'.

By definition, if there ARE any documents protected by 'executive priviledge', they involve the Office of the President of the United States.

So, we have only two logical outcomes:

Either Obama is lying about Executive Priviledge, or he is lying about his involvement.

I am not sure which is worse.

k_dawg

October 10, 2012, 08:54 PM

The point should be, existing federal gun laws were not enforced, but the Left is using Fast and Furious to call for more gun laws, and to bring back the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

In fact, it proves that 'more gun laws', especially at the Federal level have the peverse effect of creating more of a problem.

If you did not have such corruption in the ATF, and if they simply enforced the current laws on the books, and did not force the dealers and local law enforcement to become unwilling participants in criminial activity designed to allow guns to 'walk'; this would never have happened in the first place.

A key part of F&F was the federal gov't sanctioning AND directing behavior already illegal.

Dave Workman

October 10, 2012, 09:04 PM

Ah, 'k_dawg" I believe you may have cracked a code.
Either he knew and that justifies Exec privilege, or he didn't and that moots EP.

There was a new development in F&F today (Wednesday) that I covered on Examiner.com. Here's a link.

What I find intriguing, or make that disappointing, is the general public's lack of caring about this. It's deplorable. We've got a government agency that "appears" to have gone rather rogue at least in Arizona, flooding northern Mexico with guns, resulting in countless deaths down there and in a law enforcement murder up here.

That plain sucks.

It's been suggested more than once by more than one person that if an "R" administration was still in charge, this story would be Page One, above the fold, every day until impeachment...

For my profession, that's just plain sad.

Zoogster

October 10, 2012, 10:12 PM

One thing I find so ironic it would be humorous if not dealing with the deaths of human beings:
People directing Fast and Furious planned on and expected to let guns go to Mexico, be involved in crime, and then use that to prove things to their advantage.
They express happiness when officials in Mexico are killed with these weapons, knowing it helps establish American guns as a problem.

The more deaths they could get these weapons involved in down in Mexico the happier they became, as it helped make the case more strongly.
These are high and low level Mexican officials and politicians.
Yet suddenly a US border patrol agent is killed, and things are tragic.
No offense to our fine Border Patrol that often does a tough job, but 1 US agent turns the program on its head and scares those involved, but many in Mexico was a cause for celebration each time they happened.

High level Mexicans mean nothing and are even a worthy sacrifice whos deaths are worth celebrating because it makes for a better case, but 1 low level US agent is a tragedy.

Also the big difference between these programs and things like Wide Receiver is the clearly different motivations and plans. Sure both involve guns going to bad guys. However previously they involved law enforcement on the other side of the border, people with jurisdiction on both sides of the border (including US agents working with Mexicans) and the plan was always to recover the weapons even though they sometimes failed.
Fast and Furious was very different in that they often had no intention of recovering the weapons, but rather hoped to find them at crimes scenes in Mexico and from there prove how they got there and how they were connected to shops in the USA.
The motivation of the earlier programs was much better, even though they failed enough that they decided it was unwise to continue because it was supplying guns to the bad guys that were unrecovered often enough.
The motivation of the later program though was clearly more sinister. To demonstrate a problem with American gun liberties by insuring guns could get to the bad guys (and even preventing FFLs from stopping sales as needed), and could then be traced to America once they were found at crime scenes in Mexico.
Collateral damage to prove a political point I guess is what they considered lives of Mexicans. The ends of a new AWB justified the means of helping the bad guys and then pointing the finger at the well tracked guns they used.

481

October 10, 2012, 10:16 PM

A key part of F&F was the federal gov't sanctioning AND directing behavior already illegal.

It is offensive enough when our Government does something like this, but then to do so for the purpose of creating a "problem" whose solution is more firearms legislation? Unbelieveable. :mad:

Sadly, none of this will be sorted 'til well after the election.

Dave Workman

October 11, 2012, 10:54 AM

Zoogster wrote:
One thing I find so ironic it would be humorous if not dealing with the deaths of human beings:
People directing Fast and Furious planned on and expected to let guns go to Mexico, be involved in crime, and then use that to prove things to their advantage.

I think you have it, which is similar to what I stated at the Gun Rights Policy Conference about two weeks ago during a presentation on F&F. People died, and this was all done in our name, by an agency of our government, and I'm pretty certain our tax money paid for that.

As a reporter, I'm supposed to retain some semblance of skepticism and objectivity. As a citizen, I am, well, disappointed, to put it diplomatically.

alsaqr

October 12, 2012, 08:06 AM

One of the Fast and Furious whistleblowers, Agent Vince Cefalu, was fired by the BATFE yesterday. Vince Cefalu has long complained about BATFE practices.

Vince Cefalu said he was served his termination papers Tuesday in a Denny's parking lot in South Lake Tahoe, Calif. But he doesn't plan to go quietly.

Neverwinter

October 14, 2012, 12:08 AM

Talk about the goal post being moved. I do not believe anyone has made the point that Obama was 'running' F&F. Not even Holder would have. Obama does not 'run' much of anything. He [ or any President ] does not 'run' much of anything. He primarily establishes policy, agendas and goals.

Okay, so consider the question as you would phrase it, "Here's a question: Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were the cause of F&F gun walking if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking?"

By all means, lead us through your critical thinking process.

However, your question presupposes facts which are a logical impossibility:

If the documents show zero involvement by Obama, then they are not documents protected by 'executive priviledge'.
Perhaps you should read the link that was provided about the legal analysis from the OSU professor.

The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

But don't you know? EVERYBODY is to blame, EXCEPT Obama and Holder. YOU have more responsibility than Obama and Holder. Why? You're not Obama or Holder.
This perspective is unusual, but not surprising given the desire to dismiss the report as a whitewash because it doesn't blame Obama and Holder. It's not about the facts, it's about the presumption of blame on two people despite it. The rejection of the thought experiment only hinted at this opinion, but that comment truly laid out the perspective at work here. Nothing contained within those executive privilege documents could ever change their minds, as they have already prepared for the assumption that the lack of gun walking endorsement that might emerge "could be inaccurate". It can only support what they already know, that these people are guilty.

danez71

October 14, 2012, 02:05 AM

Is there anyone here who is willing to be brave enough to recant their belief that Obama and Holder were the cause of F&F gun walking if the released executive privilege documents demonstrate no policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking?"

(my suspicion is that Obama said 'we need to prove guns are bad, make it happen' and Holder parroted the orders and did.)

Sure. Get me those documents and if there isnt any thing indicating "policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking" then I'll change my suspicion.

Until then, you can speculate that there isnt anything to hide in those documents they are hiding (aka executive protection) from everyone.

And the rest of the common sense folks will continure to speculate that they are hiding something in the documents they are hiding.

It's not about the facts, it's about the presumption of blame on two people despite it.

No. You're wrong. Its all about the facts. Including the facts that are being hidden in those documents they are hiding.

You're making the presumption that the man in charge (Holder) was so bad at his job that he knew nothing about what was going on right under his nose.

You're also making the presumption that you know the answers and that everyone else is making presumptions and speculating.

Maybe you should try some of your own thinking experiements and think about why they are hideing so many facts in those documents.

Maybe you should also try some thinking experiments on your whole position in this matter.

Think about Neverwinter.... you are greatly out numbered on this issue.

Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?

Do you really think you're the Christoppher Columbus in this matter? That you are the progressive thinker and are willing to stake your life that your extremely minority opinion is right?

Oh wait... Thats right. Even Christopher Columbus had some science to support his beliefs.

Where-as you just have a bunch of hidden facts, incomplete reports/investigation and speculation to based your presumptous opinion on.

It works both ways. Now try it yourself.... and on yourself..... before recommending it to others.

Neverwinter

October 14, 2012, 01:27 PM

Sure. Get me those documents and if there isnt any thing indicating "policy, agenda or goals endorsing gun walking" then I'll change my suspicion.

Until then, you can speculate that there isnt anything to hide in those documents they are hiding (aka executive protection) from everyone.

And the rest of the common sense folks will continure to speculate that they are hiding something in the documents they are hiding.
Thank you for stepping up.
Although the "common sense" people are willfully ignorant of the history regarding their logic of executive privilege as an admission of guilt. Not to mention the intentional ignorance regarding the legal underpinnings of the executive privilege claim which lead them to the false belief that the documents must have proof of Obama's involvement.

No. You're wrong. Its all about the facts. Including the facts that are being hidden in those documents they are hiding. You're making the presumption that the man in charge (Holder) was so bad at his job that he knew nothing about what was going on right under his nose. You're also making the presumption that you know the answers and that everyone else is making presumptions and speculating.
That is what the report says, isn't it? That these people were carrying out the gun walking operation, and the information wasn't being passed up to Holder?

Maybe you should try some of your own thinking experiements and think about why they are hideing so many facts in those documents. Maybe you should also try some thinking experiments on your whole position in this matter.

Think about Neverwinter.... you are greatly out numbered on this issue. Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding? Do you really think you're the Christoppher Columbus in this matter? That you are the progressive thinker and are willing to stake your life that your extremely minority opinion is right? Oh wait... Thats right. Even Christopher Columbus had some science to support his beliefs.

It works both ways. Now try it yourself.... and on yourself..... before recommending it to others.
My posts in this thread have been the demonstration of my thinking experiences. They contain the conclusions, reasoning, and counterexamples behind the objection to prejudices of guilt being applied here.

Unlike some other posters here, I have thought about history and how executive privilege has been applied in previous presidential terms. A simple observation of the conclusions from historical uses of EP with the same presumptions at work here would provide ample counterexamples. EP was invoked over the investigation of Pat Tillman's death. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of Tillman's death. EP was invoked over the investigation of Abu Ghraib mistreatment. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the mistreatment. EP was invoked over misuse of mob informants. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the misuse. The list goes on and on.

I've gone through the complement of the thought experiment that I posted. If the released documents showed policy, agenda and goals endorsing gun walking, I would recant my objections to the belief that Obama and Holder were the cause of F&F gun walking.

Despite your suggestions to the contrary, facts aren't consensus-based. If you found yourself on a 15th century voyage, and everyone around you was convinced that you had landed on India, that doesn't make it true. This site represents a small self-selected microcosm of individuals, and making broad claims regarding majority opinion of the entire population based on it would be faulty. And before you start accusing people of being less intelligent, see the following study regarding delusion among intelligent, educated individuals.
http://www.asanet.org/images/journals/docs/pdf/asr/Apr12ASRFeature.pdf
In essence, this study greatly complicates claims of the deficit model, which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science, by showing that educated conservatives uniquely experienced the decline in trust. This interesting result may indicate that educated conservatives have been most affected by the NR’s identity work.

Old Fuff

October 14, 2012, 02:13 PM

A simple observation of the conclusions from historical uses of EP with the same presumptions at work here would provide ample counterexamples. EP was invoked over the investigation of Pat Tillman's death. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of Tillman's death. EP was invoked over the investigation of Abu Ghraib mistreatment. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the mistreatment. EP was invoked over misuse of mob informants. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the misuse. The list goes on and on.

In each of the cited cases the White House was determined to, if possible, protect the president from negative consequences that would occur if the documents in question were made public. Looking backwards, it would seem obvious that releasing the document would not have reflected favorably on the president and/or his advisors. How is this different than this present instance? Since the current president has refused to release the documents that were requested are we supposed to believe that President Bush was somehow or in some way guilty, but Obama is not? :uhoh:

danez71

October 14, 2012, 06:49 PM

Although the "common sense" people are willfully ignorant of the history regarding their logic of executive privilege as an admission of guilt.

Nope. I disagree. Watergate ring a bell? Guilty!

I think you're being willingfully ignorant to the fact that several times when presidents have evoked EP, dare I say, they in fact were hiding something. In fact, you mentioned some of them down below.

I also believe you're making the leap that just because EP was evoked that everyone is assuming Obama was the decision maker. Youre making it an all or nothing issue. The documents could flesh out that Obama knew nothing until after the fact and that Holder only knew after the program was in full progess and his subordinates initiated everything.

That is what the report says, isn't it? That these people were carrying out the gun walking operation, and the information wasn't being passed up to Holder?

The report also says its incomplete because lack of documents. But somehow you're willfully ignoring that part.

Unlike some other posters here, I have thought about history and how executive privilege has been applied in previous presidential terms.

But you have come to a wrong or biased conclusions. More on that below.

A simple observation of the conclusions from historical uses of EP with the same presumptions at work here would provide ample counterexamples.

Now we're getting some where....

EP was invoked over the investigation of Pat Tillman's death. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of Tillman's death.

Nope. You're making a giant leap to an incorrect conclusion.

The correct conclusion to the logic is that when EP was evoked on this issue, it was in fact hiding and covering up government involvement that was greater than initially reported before and after the initial investigation.

In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.

EP was invoked over the investigation of Abu Ghraib mistreatment. Applying the logic from here would mean that Bush was the cause of the mistreatment.

Nope. Youre again making a giant leap to an incorrect conculsion. Again, in this example, the EP was coving up governement involvment beyond what was admited by the government before and after the initial 'investigation'.

In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.

What you have done is listed examples of how the government was covering up things by evoking EP that was later proven after getting the documents.

I never said that or eluded to it either. Again, you're making giant leaps here.

I asked you if you really think you're the Chistopher Columbus in this matter. Everyone was wrong but Columbus was right.

So please dont twist what I said to fit your agenda. The question still stands BTW.

And before you start accusing people of being less intelligent, see the following study regarding delusion among intelligent, educated individuals.

Whoa Whoa Whoa..... I NEVER accused anyone of being less intelligent!! I asked if you thought you more intelligent than everyone else.

I'll quote myself:

Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?

So again, do not twist what I said to fit your own agenda.

You have done things like that several times in this thread. Twice with me from just one post of mine.

I suggest you stop that practice as that only undermines any point you're trying to make.

By your own examples, EP had historically been unsed as a Govt cover up and at least one time in recent modern history, it was used to cover up the Presidents' own involvment in crime.

You have just made the case even stronger that the EP is hiding something... based on history, the govenments involvement including, but not limited to, the possibility of hiding the Presidents and/or Holders involvement.

Shadow 7D

October 14, 2012, 08:51 PM

Neverwinter is just here to stir
*controversy*

Neverwinter

October 18, 2012, 12:01 AM

I think you're being willingfully ignorant to the fact that several times when presidents have evoked EP, dare I say, they in fact were hiding something. In fact, you mentioned some of them down below.

I also believe you're making the leap that just because EP was evoked that everyone is assuming Obama was the decision maker. Youre making it an all or nothing issue. The documents could flesh out that Obama knew nothing until after the fact and that Holder only knew after the program was in full progess and his subordinates initiated everything.
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.

The most repetitive commenter that I have been responding to has been assuming that the president was the orchestrator. Would they have made that same assumption for the other EP cases I mentioned?

The report also says its incomplete because lack of documents. But somehow you're willfully ignoring that part.
I take it you weren't here for the A=B=C conversation.

The correct conclusion to the logic is that when EP was evoked on this issue, it was in fact hiding and covering up government involvement that was greater than initially reported before and after the initial investigation.

In short, the EP was in fact a Govt cover up.

I listed another using Nixon. Again, a Govt cover up.

So you have one example out of many in which the assumption that people are making would actually be true. That's not good odds, unless you're a horrible gambler.

I never said that or eluded to it either. Again, you're making giant leaps here.

I asked you if you really think you're the Chistopher Columbus in this matter. Everyone was wrong but Columbus was right.

Whoa Whoa Whoa..... I NEVER accused anyone of being less intelligent!! I asked if you thought you more intelligent than everyone else.

You have done things like that several times in this thread. Twice with me from just one post of mine.

You specifically asked if I thought that I was more intelligent than everyone else like Christopher. I have never in this thread made a claim. The only claim is on your part, making that association with intelligence.

I posted an article as a counterexample showing how intelligence is not the only cause for disagreement on an issue:

In essence, this study greatly complicates claims of the deficit model, which predicts that individuals with higher levels of education will possess greater trust in science, by showing that educated conservatives uniquely experienced the decline in trust. This interesting result may indicate that educated conservatives have been most affected by the NR’s identity work.

And then I addressed your belief in the sample of "everyone" that involves the posters in this thread as being unsound.

If you don't think facts are consensus-based, why would you bring up the number of people who agreed as a factor?

There's not much point to agreeing to an analogy that has already been dismantled.

By your own examples, EP had historically been unsed as a Govt cover up and at least one time in recent modern history, it was used to cover up the Presidents' own involvment in crime.

You have just made the case even stronger that the EP is hiding something... based on history, the govenments involvement including, but not limited to, the possibility of hiding the Presidents and/or Holders involvement.
Yes, we now have the foundation for the assumption that every use of executive privilege since Eisenhower was a coverup for criminal direction from the President.

Looking backwards, it would seem obvious that releasing the document would not have reflected favorably on the president and/or his advisors.This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.

Deanimator

October 18, 2012, 06:34 AM

This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.
And precisely why the documents were withheld.

The reelection of Obama CLEARLY trumps the law and the right of the people and their representatives to know what the administration is doing.

The comparisons with Nixon are EXTREMELY apt, as are comparisons of the administration's supporters in this to Nixon's farthest fringe of support during Watergate. They remind me of no one so much as fringe Chicago radio personality Warren Freiburg who wanted Nixon to clear the Congress and rule by decree.

Carl N. Brown

October 18, 2012, 08:34 AM

So the withheld documents go to the reasons behind the coverup of Fast and Furious rather than to the reasons behind the instigation of Fast and Furious, so we should not care?

Like the reasons why the 4 Feb 2011 DOJ letter claimed there was no gunwalking and was allowed to stand as official position for months until formally withdrawn on 2 Dec 2011 are not important? Why were they defending the indefensible?

Every report whether the Democrat minority report, the Joint Staff majority report, the DOJ OIG report has found emails and documentation way before 4 Feb 2011 that guns were allowed to walk, supposedly to seek a gun trafficking kingpin, that there was gunwalking that required not enforcing existing federal law on straw purchase, dealing w/o FFL and trafficking to Mexico.

(In stopping a black market you choke the source. In the drug running model, the kingpin is the source and street dealers are small fry. In the gun running model, the street traffickers are the source supplying the kingpin and the kingpin is probably replaceable anyway. Applying the drug model--go for the big fish--is the wrong answer to the US to MX gunrunning problem.)

Whether F&F was started with intent to be used to promote gun control, it has been an exploitable crisis used to promote gun control.

danez71

October 18, 2012, 10:00 PM

From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.

Well... thanks for 'giving' that to me. :rolleyes:

The most repetitive commenter that I have been responding to has been assuming that the president was the orchestrator. Would they have made that same assumption for the other EP cases I mentioned?

Probably.

I take it you weren't here for the A=B=C conversation.

Oh.. I was here. I take it you werent here when you listed examples of when EP was used and it in fact was a Govt cover up.

I also listed Nixon in which he was directly involved.

How about another? Clinton lost in court just as Nixon did and not so shockingly, it proved that he was hiding something that he was directly involved in.

So you have one example out of many in which the assumption that people are making would actually be true. That's not good odds, unless you're a horrible gambler.

I have two now. I just doubled my odds. And not so oddly, you didnt mention either one. Did you forget about those two? Or did they not fit your side of the debate?

You specifically asked if I thought that I was more intelligent than everyone else like Christopher. I have never in this thread made a claim. The only claim is on your part, making that association with intelligence.

LOL... I didnt claim that you claimed that. I simply asked you a question of which you still havent answered. BTW, Chistopher Columbus was a pretty smart guy, and in the minority of opinion on the matter, and was right.

I posted an article as a counterexample showing how intelligence is not the only cause for disagreement on an issue:

Yes you did. It tried to associate a persons religion and political affiliation to not beliving or being more skepticle of science. I'm not going there. Good try to divert the conversation and muddy the water though.

And then I addressed your belief in the sample of "everyone" that involves the posters in this thread as being unsound.

Actually, I said 'extreme minority'; not "everyone".

If you don't think facts are consensus-based, why would you bring up the number of people who agreed as a factor?

Well I dont think facts are concensus based. That should be evident when I brought up Christohper Columbus. But statisically, usually if most people think A=B=C, they are right. Usually. Christopher Columbus is the counter example. And thats way I asked you if you thought you were the Christopher in this debate.

There's not much point to agreeing to an analogy that has already been dismantled.

But it hasnt been dismantled. It was made stronger by your own examples and the two that I gave that you left out.

Yes, we now have the foundation for the assumption that every use of executive privilege since Eisenhower was a coverup for criminal direction from the President.

See.. now there you go again. All or nothing. Its doesnt HAVE to be EVERY use of EP. Why did make that giant leep?

But what we do have the foundation of is that in fact, in recent mordern history, EP has been used as a Govt cover up AND to hide the Presidents own actions at least two times.

This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections.

Thats your assumption. Not fact.

I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.

Deanimator

October 19, 2012, 06:46 AM

I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
What you fail to understand is that to some people, ANY criticism of ANY attempt to impose a new AWB is "political", even a highly illegal one that kills hundreds of people.

NOTHING is more important than a new AWB... not even human life.

HorseSoldier

October 19, 2012, 11:04 AM

(In stopping a black market you choke the source. In the drug running model, the kingpin is the source and street dealers are small fry. In the gun running model, the street traffickers are the source supplying the kingpin and the kingpin is probably replaceable anyway. Applying the drug model--go for the big fish--is the wrong answer to the US to MX gunrunning problem.)

That's a good point. As long as the US drug market is a huge cash cow for organized criminals in Mexico, there will be a consequent market for illegal guns in Mexico (from the US and elsewhere). This whole disastrous fiasco was not even conceptually an effective means to even reduce the American component of illegal guns in Mexico (and without even looking at the issue of whether even a 100% elimination of US guns in Mexico would make one bit of difference).

Neverwinter

October 19, 2012, 11:06 AM

Oh.. I was here. I take it you werent here when you listed examples of when EP was used and it in fact was a Govt cover up.
A cover up is much more limited than the position that has been repeatedly posted here.

I also listed Nixon in which he was directly involved.

How about another? Clinton lost in court just as Nixon did and not so shockingly, it proved that he was hiding something that he was directly involved in.

I have two now. I just doubled my odds. And not so oddly, you didnt mention either one. Did you forget about those two? Or did they not fit your side of the debate?
You've doubled from one to two out of how many?

LOL... I didnt claim that you claimed that. I simply asked you a question of which you still havent answered. BTW, Chistopher Columbus was a pretty smart guy, and in the minority of opinion on the matter, and was right.
Do you honestly think that you are so much more intelligent than eveyone else that only you have a clear understanding?

Yes you did. It tried to associate a persons religion and political affiliation to not beliving or being more skepticle of science. I'm not going there.
So the refutation of the opening of your question still stands.

Actually, I said 'extreme minority'; not "everyone".
And you would be just as wrong, trying to make conclusion about a population based on a self-selected sample.

Well I dont think facts are concensus based. That should be evident when I brought up Christohper Columbus. But statisically, usually if most people think A=B=C, they are right. Usually. Christopher Columbus is the counter example. And thats way I asked you if you thought you were the Christopher in this debate.

But it hasnt been dismantled. It was made stronger by your own examples and the two that I gave that you left out.

Let's see, the issue of intelligence has already been debunked with the link which you have no objection to. The fundamental characteristic that you have been harping on regarding Columbus, namely his extreme minority opinion, has also been debunked.

If you had been following the discussion, you would have read how the A=B link was not supported by the evidence, and yet people were still trying to make the A=B=C link. That's illogical.

See.. now there you go again. All or nothing. Its doesnt HAVE to be EVERY use of EP. Why did make that giant leep?

But what we do have the foundation of is that in fact, in recent mordern history, EP has been used as a Govt cover up AND to hide the Presidents own actions at least two times.
So what you're saying is that from those two times out of all the uses, it would be safe to make the assumption that this incident is not like the vast majority of the uses, but of the minority?

Thats your assumption. Not fact.

I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
It's confessed outright in the second post in the thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8414295&postcount=2). "The guys at the top get off and the whole matter can be quickly forgotten before the election."

If it weren't politically motivated, we wouldn't have seen the negative reversal on the reactions from those who supported earlier uses of EP.

Neverwinter

October 19, 2012, 11:12 AM

What you fail to understand is that to some people, ANY criticism of ANY attempt to impose a new AWB is "political", even a highly illegal one that kills hundreds of people.

NOTHING is more important than a new AWB... not even human life.
From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.

By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?

Carl N. Brown

October 19, 2012, 11:22 AM

Post #131. That theory conveniently fits the famous Rahm Emmanuel quote: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

Legislation and political action initiated in response to a Moral Panic has usually resulted in bad law and bad policy. See the history of gun control in the US.

Taking the discredited practices of "gun walking" and "controlled delivery" ended Oct 2007 under Wide Receiver and restarting "gunwalking" Nov 2009 in Fast and Furious, amounts to creating a crisis to exploit. Or exploiting an unintentionally created crisis, whichever came first, the serpent or the egg.

In order to save some human lives (with an assault weapon ban), we had to sacrifice some human lives (by allowing gunwalking). Sounds typical of Big Government advocates.

Carl N. Brown

October 19, 2012, 11:29 AM

Who would want to be the Christopher Columbus in this debate?

Most half-educated folks since 300 BC believed the world was round. The Spanish Court in 1490s believed China and the Indies were about 8,000 miles west of Portugal. Columbus believed China was only 3,000 miles away. (Washington Irving's 1800s Columbus book was satirical not historical.)

Deanimator

October 19, 2012, 01:16 PM

From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.
I don't know their opinions on an AWB.

I DO know Obama's and Holder's.

It wasn't Terry's parents who intentionally sent firearms to known criminals in order to generate support for an AWB.

It was Obama and Holder.

By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?
I haven't the slightest doubt that Nixon was guilty of that of which he was accused and much more besides.

Those who support a new AWB will support Watergate to do so.

But then I've also seen them support the Holocaust to do so.

For those who support an AWB... or worse, hundreds of lives or millions, it's all the same to them.

Grandpa Eichmann in that Lakewood McDonald's was a lot more typical of anti-gunners than a lot of people want to believe.

Shadow 7D

October 31, 2012, 12:47 AM

Wait

lets move this a step further

we know how the white house operates
look at the Bengazi attack, SOMEONE was watching real time LIVE video of it, there were marines, drones, CIA and other resources in strike range, the situation being beamed live into the Situation Room.....

Yet
Folks,
Nothing to see here
Just 'Innocent Muslims (religion of peace:barf:)
spontaneously (after being told all about it thanks to a US 'apology' ad)
demonstrating......

SO
From an administration that KNOWINGLY lied to the people for at least 12 days in the face of a HUGE amount of evidence to the contray, you want me Neverwinter to think that nothing is being hidden by the EO, which is covering an obstructionist justice department...

k_dawg

October 31, 2012, 09:50 PM

All that matters is that the media will cover up for BO for a few more days now.

DammitBoy

October 31, 2012, 10:00 PM

Is it possible that the President or Holder initiated the gun walking program?

Yes.

Do we have all the documents that could prove or disprove this supposition available from the "transparent" Obama White House?

No.

Why?

Because the White House is protecting itself or Holder by withholding documents from the public and congress.

End of story.

Neverwinter

November 1, 2012, 01:04 AM

From the standards expressed in your posts, the Terry's don't find their son's life important as part or their support for a new AWB.
I don't know their opinions on an AWB.

I DO know Obama's and Holder's.

It wasn't Terry's parents who intentionally sent firearms to known criminals in order to generate support for an AWB.

It was Obama and Holder.

It was in your posts that you named people AWB supporters who didn't agree with your assumption about the guilt of Obama and Holder. You do know their opinions on an AWB because they made the press release agreeing with the conclusion of the IG report. You also know that they don't care about the death of their son and the Mexicans, because they don't agree with your assumptions regarding Obama and Holder's guilt.

A grieving family has an excuse for making emotional, unfounded assumptions. It's expected for those touched by tragedy, like those spree shooting bystanders who talk about how we'd all be safer with less guns.

You're making the assumption of guilt based on who they are, not the evidence. The unwillingness to consider the thought experiment of having your mind changed by the contents of the EP documents was the first sign. The willingness to project that sentiment of identity-based guilt on others was another.

By the way, would you like to support or refute danez71's statement that you would have probably made the same assumption about presidential guilt for the other EP cases mentioned?
I haven't the slightest doubt that Nixon was guilty of that of which he was accused and much more besides.
That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?

You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.

Thats your assumption. Not fact.

I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.
All that matters is that the media will cover up for BO for a few more days now.
;)

Neverwinter

November 1, 2012, 01:11 AM

Is it possible that the President or Holder initiated the gun walking program?

Yes.

Do we have all the documents that could prove or disprove this supposition available from the "transparent" Obama White House?

No.

Why?

Because the White House is protecting itself or Holder by withholding documents from the public and congress.
What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.

Old Fuff

November 1, 2012, 11:45 AM

Let us presume - only for argument - that the documents being withheld by the Obama Administration either indicate that the President and Attorney General were in no way directly or indirectly involved in F&F, or contain no evidence one way or the other. Given that Obama is (apparently) in a tight race to keep his job, wouldn't it be advantageous to have released the papers, and in so doing defused the issue? While it is clear that F&F is nowhere close to the top of the list, it could make a critical difference in a close vote in those states that have a common border with Mexico, and with other voters who are associated with various Gun Rights organizations.

Given this reality, it would seem that if they were clean of anything damaging it would be logical to release them. While it is true that some individuals would not change their mind regardless of the evidence, it is probable that not every voter meets this description.

It is unlikely that Obama can make a case for innocence by hiding favorable evidence, and clearly it’s unlikely his advocates can successfully do it for him.

DammitBoy

November 1, 2012, 05:07 PM

...even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition...

Fluff and nonsense. There is no other reason to withhold them.

Neverwinter

November 2, 2012, 12:18 AM

Given that Obama is (apparently) in a tight race to keep his job, wouldn't it be advantageous to have released the papers, and in so doing defused the issue? While it is clear that F&F is nowhere close to the top of the list, it could make a critical difference in a close vote in those states that have a common border with Mexico, and with other voters who are associated with various Gun Rights organizations.Arizona, New Mexico and Texas? Of those, the only one that went to Obama was NM. AZ has twice as many electoral votes as NM, and TX 7 times. Both are not going to Obama, so it would be pointless pandering.

Given this reality, it would seem that if they were clean of anything damaging it would be logical to release them. While it is true that some individuals would not change their mind regardless of the evidence, it is probable that not every voter meets this description.

It is unlikely that Obama can make a case for innocence by hiding favorable evidence, and clearly it’s unlikely his advocates can successfully do it for him.
As was mentioned earlier in the thread, this does have shades of the Birthers. When the Birther movement got into full swing, the short form birth certificate was already released. From that point, the reasonable people who actually cared about evidence knew that the Birther movement was going nowhere. The people who cannot be reasoned with were the ones who continued to claim that Obama wasn't a citizen. It is pointless to reason with them because their opinions persist despite the facts.

At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.

DammitBoy

November 2, 2012, 11:06 AM

Actually, Neverwinter, you come across as someone who will not change their mind, even if Obama was caught eating live babies.

Old Fuff

November 2, 2012, 11:53 AM

At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.

The IG report was an internal one, and based on only that information and documentation that the Administration and Justice Department were willing to release to it. Thus after reviewing only a part of the total they decide that neither the president or attorney general were guilty of any involvement, and those who are outside looking in are supposed to accept their findings without question?

If you were on a jury and knew that possibly important information had been withheld so you couldn't consider it, would you find the defendant guilty?

In this case it is the defendant who is withholding information, and then expects we will assume he is innocent.

Why do you expect people to decide what their opinion is, when they know that what they are being told is based entirely on selected evidence?

k_dawg

November 2, 2012, 07:06 PM

What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.

A cover up need not cover up illegal activity by that individual. Scooter Libby commited no crimes other than lying to cover up legal activity.

Nixon did not commit the crime of the Watergate break up.

In any event, given your hypothetical question about pigs flying, then they would be guilty of fraudulently claiming executive priviledge.

danez71

November 2, 2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by danez71
Thats your assumption. Not fact.

I think youre being blinded by the assumption that this investigation is solely the result of political motivation and has nothing to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k_dawg
All that matters is that the media will cover up for BO for a few more days now.

;)

The wink alludes to that you agree that this is all politically motivated and that it doesnt have anything to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.

Care to confirm or deny?

What many of the people who make this claim neglect to mention about their position is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence to prove the supposition, they will still claim that Obama and Holder are guilty. The reluctance of response to the thought experiment earlier in the thread shows this.

Uh... I believe I was NOT reluctant to respond. :D

That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?

You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.

No. Besides being a GIANT leap of non-logic on your part, a sensible person cant answer 'yes' or 'no' because the question doesnt make sense to answer.

Its like asking someone 'do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?' If cant answer yes for obvious reasons, and if you answer No, then it means that only only pick your nose sometimes when you kiss your girlfriend.

At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.

Thats pretty much the pot calling the kettle black right there. :scrutiny:

....is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence.....

So... why dont let release the info that they are hiding?

You never have really directly said why they are choosing to hide the info instead of releasing it in order to make this a non-issue and put it behind them.

Carl N. Brown

November 4, 2012, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Neverwinter
From the dates of the documents under executive privilege, I'll give you the possibility that they found out after the operation completed. That also makes an assumption about the presence of evidence in the documents, when there is no external indication of such.

If ATF Phoenix SAC William Newell and Case Agent Hope MacAllister (blamed along with Group Supervisor David Voth) are correct in claiming that upper management in the DOJ and administration knew and approved of what they were doing, and scapegoated them, then the withheld documents might reflect that.

BTW there are two sets of withheld documents, one set at the Holder DOJ level and one set at the White House level.

Holder and Obama expressed support in the 2008 campaign for renewing the AWB. Starting Apr 2009 Obama and Calderon held several press events blaming Mexican Drug War violence on the sunset of the AWB. A government report claimed 87% of Mexican crime guns came from the US. That was actually 3,480 guns of 4,000 guns that were in ATF records of guns made in the US or imported into the US, out of the total of 30,000 Mexican drug crime guns seized 2004-2008. US Dept of Homeland Security and the independent Strategic Forecasting pointed out the 87% fallacy (3,480 is 12% of 30,000). Then in Nov 2009, Phoenix ATF restarted the discredited practice of "gunwalking" and "Fast and Furious" put 1,961 guns into cartel hands, and hundreds more US guns started showing up at Mexican crime scenes. It was not stopped until after Brian Terry was killed 14 Dec 2010. 4 Feb 2011 the Holder DOJ put out a letter denying "gunwalking" was done; withdrew the letter 2 Dec 2011. Yes, there was gunwalking. Then Holder claimed he put an end to gunwalking while simultaneously claiming he did not know about it until after the operation had ended. And the great and wonderful wizard of Obama says there is no need to look behind the curtain. It is all just coincidence.

(On the other hand, arguing Bush/Obama over Wide Receiver/Fast and Furious is kinda like arguing Bush Sr/Clinton over Ruby Ridge/Waco. In Ruby Ridge and Waco the tragic outcomes were dictated in both by the way ATF lied to other agencies and the way HRT Commander Dick Rogers ran the FBI HRT, but the Clinton Administration defended Waco but did not defend Ruby Ridge, when the real problem was the way ATF and FBI acted in both situations.)

But Obama being for renewing the AWB before he had no position is not assuring.

Neverwinter

November 4, 2012, 11:45 PM

Actually, Neverwinter, you come across as someone who will not change their mind, even if Obama was caught eating live babies.If you were paying attention to the discussion, you would understand that this is not true. I have stated that if the released documents contain culpatory information, I would change my mind. My position of executive privilege holds true for other presidents as well. If we were talking about Tillman's death, you would be here accusing me of not changing my mind even if Bush was caught eating live babies.

If you were on a jury and knew that possibly important information had been withheld so you couldn't consider it, would you find the defendant guilty?

In this case it is the defendant who is withholding information, and then expects we will assume he is innocent.

Why do you expect people to decide what their opinion is, when they know that what they are being told is based entirely on selected evidence?
If I were on the jury, that is how it would work. I am not a lawyer, but the jury is supposed to make their decision based on the evidence admitted by the court not on external unvetted sources or their personal prejudices.

I expect people to make the best decision based on the available evidence, rather than clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing that they "know" to be true. You know, like a rational person.

The wink alludes to that you agree that this is all politically motivated and that it doesnt have anything to do with finding the truth because its the right thing to do.

Care to confirm or deny?
My apologies for not double quoting so that you would understand the context of your quoted statement.

It was in response to this: "This was precisely the reason for the importance of having it released before the elections."

The quote from k_dawg illustrates the point that you were trying to refute.

Oh, and confirming that for some people it is all about politics and not about the truth. That much is apparent from unwillingness to visualize your opinion changing based on new evidence. It would not be responsible to take the words of forum members on here and extrapolate them to the general population, as you did with the statement regarding unanimous opinion.

It would have been irresponsible for Holder to point out all of the administration's opposition as being racist (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/us/politics/under-partisan-fire-eric-holder-soldiers-on.html?pagewanted=all) due to some racist elements being present (http://www.aljazeera.com/focus/2009/08/200982075754210254.html).

Uh... I believe I was NOT reluctant to respond.

And thank you for raising my hopes.

That doesn't answer the question. No one here doubts that Nixon was guilty. To rephrase: Was Bush guilty for Tillman's death? The deficiency in the Katrina response? The mistreatment at Abu Ghraib?

You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.
No. Besides being a GIANT leap of non-logic on your part, a sensible person cant answer 'yes' or 'no' because the question doesnt make sense to answer.

Its like asking someone 'do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?' If cant answer yes for obvious reasons, and if you answer No, then it means that only only pick your nose sometimes when you kiss your girlfriend.You have confused yourself on the logic here, which is understandable. If the question is "do you always pick your nose when you kiss your girl friend?", they saying Yes means that you always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. Saying No means that you do not always pick your nose when you kiss your girlfriend. This could mean anywhere from one less than everytime to no times. A better question would have been "when did you stop picking your nose when kissing your girlfriend?"

What you might have been thinking about is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?", which is loaded because either yes or no forces the responder to admit to having a wife and beating her.

A sensible person can say "no", because the accusatory presupposition isn't there. Deanimator, on the other hand, can't say "no" because it contradicts his stated opinion regarding executive privilege based guilt. Just because Deanimator has taken a position in which the sensible answer would be contradictory doesn't mean the question is loaded.

At this point, with the release of the IG report, the ones who persist in their presumption of guilt(e.g. Deanimator above your post, or DammitBoy below) do match that description of those who will not change their mind regardless of the evidence.
Thats pretty much the pot calling the kettle black right there.

See response to DammitBoy for the refutation.

....is that even if the documents being withheld by executive privilege are released and contain no evidence.....

So... why dont let release the info that they are hiding?

You never have really directly said why they are choosing to hide the info instead of releasing it in order to make this a non-issue and put it behind them.
I have directly said it two ways in this thread: with the legal opinion of an OSU law professor regarding deliberative executive privilege, and with a brief reminder of the history of Birther conspiracy theorists.

You might as well be asking me in the summer of 2008 about why they are chosing to hide the long form birth certificate to make it a non-issue and put it behind them.

Yes, there was gunwalking. Then Holder claimed he put an end to gunwalking while simultaneously claiming he did not know about it until after the operation had ended. And the great and wonderful wizard of Obama says there is no need to look behind the curtain. It is all just coincidence.If you're referring to the Feb 4, 2011 letter, that wasn't claiming that he put an end to the gun walking of the Bush era. That stopped before the last Bush AG left office. After writing the letter, the documents from the Congressional proceedings show that Holder emailed subordinates to check that gunwalking was not being performed. The proceedings also showed that the email responses were to the affirmative.

On the other hand, that would just be a trick because Holder would know that they would catch on to the gunwalking so he planned on having his subordinates lie to him to exonerate him from guilt. To consider otherwise, as the Great Vizzini would say, "Inconceivable!" (Also, "Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!")

Old Fuff

November 5, 2012, 10:48 AM

I expect people to make the best decision based on the available evidence, rather than clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing that they "know" to be true. You know, like a rational person.

How do you expect people to make a "best decision," when the "available evidence" is incomplete? Could you, as a jury member in my previous post, make a "best decision" if the information you needed to accomplish this was intentionally suppressed? And if you objected to this, would it be fair for me to say that you were "clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing?" Is it wrong for a "rational person" to object when it seems clear that someone is trying to manage what their decision will be?

The very basis of a rational opinion is access to all (not just selected) facts.

DammitBoy

November 5, 2012, 01:43 PM

If you were paying attention to the discussion, you would understand that this is not true.

I've paid attention to the discussion, thanks for assuming I have not. I've also read plenty of other posts by you in other threads.

Your position will always be one supporting the current administration, regardless of facts or facts withheld.

danez71

November 5, 2012, 11:00 PM

How do you expect people to make a "best decision," when the "available evidence" is incomplete? Could you, as a jury member in my previous post, make a "best decision" if the information you needed to accomplish this was intentionally suppressed? And if you objected to this, would it be fair for me to say that you were "clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing?" Is it wrong for a "rational person" to object when it seems clear that someone is trying to manage what their decision will be?

The very basis of a rational opinion is access to all (not just selected) facts.

Agreed.

Which is why, IMO and probably others, think the Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.

I dont know if they are guilty or not. But as discussed earlier, EP has historically been used, on several occassions, to cover up high lever government wrongdoings.... by both parties.

I dont care whos in office, those documents are being hidden for a reason and the reason is usually incriminating.

Is that proof enough for me to be convinced they're guilty? No.
Has hhistory proven that there is reason to be suspicious of EP? YES!

Neverwinter

November 6, 2012, 01:52 AM

How do you expect people to make a "best decision," when the "available evidence" is incomplete? Could you, as a jury member in my previous post, make a "best decision" if the information you needed to accomplish this was intentionally suppressed? And if you objected to this, would it be fair for me to say that you were "clinging to prejudices of some imaginary thing?" Is it wrong for a "rational person" to object when it seems clear that someone is trying to manage what their decision will be?

The very basis of a rational opinion is access to all (not just selected) facts.
The legal system was specifically designed for people to do exactly that. If evidence is found not to be admissible in court on 4th amendment or 5th amendment grounds, you are not to make judgments based on those intentionally suppressed articles. It is rational for a person to make decisions that way because there are very good reasons for having those limitations on what qualifies for evidence.

I've paid attention to the discussion, thanks for assuming I have not. I've also read plenty of other posts by you in other threads.

Your position will always be one supporting the current administration, regardless of facts or facts withheld.
The assumption was based in your statement which is in direct opposition to what has been demonstrated in this thread. By all means, if you have seen posts which directly contradict the statements regarding willingness to acknowledge evidence and assuming blame beyond what the evidence supports in the above executive privilege cases, please post them. Until then, all you have is an unsupported opinion, which presumably was intended as an ad hominem.

Agreed.

Which is why, IMO and probably others, think the Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.

I dont know if they are guilty or not. But as discussed earlier, EP has historically been used, on several occassions, to cover up high lever government wrongdoings.... by both parties.
If you look at the post that prompted your use of the rolleyes, you'd see that you've just constructed a strawman in claiming that I believed in complete innocence. I suggest that you read the response to Old Fuff carefully to understand how my position lines up with how a jury is supposed to behave regarding evidence which is procedurally withheld(e.g. executive privilege). Just because evidence is being withheld doesn't mean that it's reasonable to make assumptions of guilt beyond what was admitted. Especially when the number of cases for which the assumptions would hold true are in the significant minority.

Old Fuff

November 6, 2012, 09:29 AM

If evidence is found not to be admissible in court on 4th amendment or 5th amendment grounds, you are not to make judgments based on those intentionally suppressed articles. It is rational for a person to make decisions that way because there are very good reasons for having those limitations on what qualifies for evidence.

Ah....

The president didn't say anything about the 4th or 5th amendments. He simply said in affect, "NO!!!!! You can't see these papers. What is it with you people that can't understand the word NO!"

"Now that we've got that out of the way I expect everyone to trust me, and believe that neither I nor the attorney general knew anything..." :uhoh:

His true fanboys and girls probably will. Others may have doubts, and solid reasons for having them. "What is it you don't understand about the word NO! isn't going to sell, and treating us like children isn't either.

Neverwinter

November 6, 2012, 10:37 AM

Ah....

The president didn't say anything about the 4th or 5th amendments. He simply said in affect, "NO!!!!! You can't see these papers. What is it with you people that can't understand the word NO!"

"Now that we've got that out of the way I expect everyone to trust me, and believe that neither I nor the attorney general knew anything..." :uhoh:
That's a mischaracterization of the legal argument, and you can educate yourself with the previously posted article from an OSU law professor. If you're going to hold that opinion after understanding the article, you might as well make the same petulant response to any of 4th or 5th amendments claims. Claims which aren't pertinent in this instance , while the executive privilege claim is.

By all means, if you have seen posts which directly contradict the statements regarding willingness to acknowledge evidence...

Your willingness to ignore the implications of the facts being withheld by this administration are all I need to see through you.

Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.

Winner winner, chicken dinner...

Neverwinter

November 6, 2012, 10:55 PM

By all means, if you have seen posts which directly contradict the statements regarding willingness to acknowledge evidence...Your willingness to ignore the implications of the facts being withheld by this administration are all I need to see through you.
This is the same approach that Old Fuff has taken toward the 4th and 5th amendments; that anything procedurally held can be considered to be culpatory to the full prejudices of the beholder. Our legal system holds that perspective as incorrect, and I agree.

We saw similar behavior earlier in the thread, using a McCarthy-esque alienating technique to mischaracterize all who did not agree with prejudices regarding guilt as supporting the AWB. Rather than defend fallacious arguments, it was easier to attack the person. In this case, the unwillingness to disregard our nation's framework of evidence and guilt is being mischaracterized as refusal to acknowledge evidence.

Neverwinter

November 9, 2012, 12:44 AM

Which is why, IMO and probably others, think the Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.
The rest of us who believe in our nation's system of innocent until proven guilty is eager to hear your justification for taking a position contrary to such.

After all, if the defense successfully quashes a molestation testimony against the defendant, that limitation on the data's release to the jury would make it obvious to any juror that he was guilty of the murder. Having information withheld is clearly an admission of guilt, otherwise they would let it through and make it a non-issue by putting it behind them.

DammitBoy

November 9, 2012, 10:54 AM

Doesn't evidence need to be presented to the court to determine if it gets "quashed" or not?

Neverwinter

November 10, 2012, 02:12 AM

Doesn't evidence need to be presented to the court to determine if it gets "quashed" or not?

Not for the 5th amendment, for example.

If they refuse a search on 4th Amendment grounds, it's also "quashed". Better not refuse searches, just to be safe.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

danez71

November 10, 2012, 03:27 AM

The rest of us who believe in our nation's system of innocent until proven guilty is eager to hear your justification for taking a position contrary to such.

I didnt take that position.

I simply stated you seem Ok with with accepting the limited data as enough to make your decision of innocence.

Hey... you're the one that making a final decision while knowing you dont have all the facts.

Originaly posted by Neverwinter

Just because evidence is being withheld doesn't mean that it's reasonable to make assumptions of guilt beyond what was admitted.

Then it also stands to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence either. But thats how you come across.

Youll never have good depth perception if you have one eye shut.

Neverwinter

November 10, 2012, 03:16 PM

The rest of us who believe in our nation's system of innocent until proven guilty is eager to hear your justification for taking a position contrary to such.I didnt take that position.

I simply stated you seem Ok with with accepting the limited data as enough to make your decision of innocence.

Hey... you're the one that making a final decision while knowing you dont have all the facts.
You do take that position because of what you say in the second half of your post. Just in case you weren't aware, the idea behind innocent until proven guilty is that the default conclusion is one of innocence, and it is the contrary evidence which convinces us to deviate from that basic state.

If the limitation of your data is that it does not provide sufficient evidence to make the conclusion of guilt, then you can't weasel word your way toward guilty anyways. The idea is to prove guilt from evidence, not make conjecture.

Just because evidence is being withheld doesn't mean that it's reasonable to make assumptions of guilt beyond what was admitted.
Then it also stands to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence either. But thats how you come across.
I guess it does stand "to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence" based on a lack of evidence to prove a guilty conclusion, if you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

Old Fuff

November 10, 2012, 07:27 PM

Ah....

Wasn't Obama the candidate in the election previous to the most recent one, who bemoaned the lack of transparency in government and promised that under his stewardship he would see that was changed???

Yet as soon as he and a high official in his administration came under suspicion he quickly reverted to a tactic designed to protect him and others from the bright light of investigation. Clearly he is one who says, “Believe in what I tell you, and ignore what I am accused of doing.”

Is there some reason we should do so?

Deanimator

November 10, 2012, 07:34 PM

Clearly he is one who says, “Believe in what I tell you, and ignore what I am accused of doing.”

Is there some reason we should do so?
Well, isn't that what you're supposed to do in any messianic religion?

Rail Driver

November 10, 2012, 07:42 PM

I guess it does stand "to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence" based on a lack of evidence to prove a guilty conclusion, if you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

I think in this case, we can take Mr. Obama's history of outright deceit as evidence pointing towards a guilty decision - He lied about literally everything he ran on in 2008. He has been caught in many other lies between then and now. The only thing I can think of offhand that he has told the truth about is that he intends to push gun control in his second term (which was proven less than 12 hours after he was "re-elected").

we are not amused

November 11, 2012, 03:38 PM

I think it is rather obvious to any rational person that neither Obama or Holder believe in the right of the People to be armed.

The real question is how far are they willing to go in efforts to deny those rights.

President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, and Attorney General Holder all made statements that the uncontrolled flow of guns into Mexico from Gun Shops, Gun Shows and private individuals were primarily responsible for all the drug violence going on there. They called for the so-called Gun Show Loop-hole to be closed, and that semi-auto weapons must be banned or regulated, and gun registration in various forms.

All that, while the Arizona Federal Prosecutor, and high ranking members of the BATFE, including the acting head of the BATFE are busily engaged in deliberately sending weapons, including Barret 50 cal. rifles to the drug cartels in Mexico. Which by the way is a serious violation of Federal Law.

Where are the indictments? Why has no one in the Government been prosecuted?

That is the crux of the argument that there must have been higher up support for the BATFE program than acting-director Melson.

International Law and treaties were broken, and no one in the hierarchy of the BATFE thought that maybe some one in the State Department needed to be informed? For that matter, there are those E-mails suggesting that "Operation Fast and Furious" be used to support the call for more gun control legislation. If I were Attorney General Holder, or President Obama, or even Secretary of State Clinton, and I found out that an illegal government operation was being used to justify my support of greater gun control laws, I would want to get to the bottom of it as fast as I could, and fire all of the people involved! On the other hand, I am honest, and not a Leftist Politician, who want to deprive people of the 2nd Amendment Rights, so maybe their attempt to cover up what happened is the normal way they operate.

From the E-mails, it is obvious that agents in the BATFE were aware of the fact that flooding Mexico with illegal weapons by agents of the U. S. Government could be used by that same Government to foment further laws restricting the 2nd Amendment Rights, and that this would be looked upon in favor by their bosses, Holder and Obama.

IF there is any evidence of complicity by the White House or the Attorney General, they SHOULD be impeached!

And there are some tantalizing scraps of evidence. The wire tap request, which went through Holder's office, and the daily briefings He should have seen, and the briefing of a National Security Adviser to the President, who was deliberately made unavailable to Congressional hearings.

Smoking gun? Perhaps not, but tantalizing evidence to say the least. Would it not be proper to know just what the President knew, and when did he know it? He seems to be have been very unconcerned about the facts of the matter, unless of course, he knew far more than he claims.

I would like to remind people, that in Watergate, no one died.

DammitBoy

November 12, 2012, 12:47 AM

Great post sir!

popper

November 12, 2012, 06:24 PM

When will you learn - KBO throws people under the bus, lets them off the hook, etc. The only truthful statement he has made was when he began to campaign the first time, saying he would run the gov differently. Now you know what he meant. The only solution is for the house to shut down the finances but the GOP will not do that no matter what. They will continue to let KBO spend and raise tax rates. NONE of them care!!!

danez71

November 13, 2012, 12:47 AM

You do take that position because of what you say in the second half of your post. Just in case you weren't aware, the idea behind innocent until proven guilty is that the default conclusion is one of innocence, and it is the contrary evidence which convinces us to deviate from that basic state.

If the limitation of your data is that it does not provide sufficient evidence to make the conclusion of guilt, then you can't weasel word your way toward guilty anyways. The idea is to prove guilt from evidence, not make conjecture.

I guess it does stand "to reason that it isnt reasonable to make the assumption of innocence" based on a lack of evidence to prove a guilty conclusion, if you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

No, I dont take that position. Only you trying to create positions and facts think I do.

In case YOU wernt aware....

If a person does something wrong, they're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent.

However, our system presumes not guilty, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

A jury gives verdicts of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. 'Not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

In different types of trials there are different thresholds needs to get a guilty verdicts.

Think about OJ. He was found 'not guilty' in the criminal case and found 'guilty' in the civil case.

As such, Holder very well could get a 'not guilty' verdict in a criminal trial and get a 'guilty' verdict in a civil trial.

A jury is limited on their options of verdicts to render; guilty or not guilty.

We're not a jury. Oh wait, I get it, you're the jury for all of us. :rolleyes:

But since I havent given you permission to decide for me :neener: Im free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration.

Including things like when Obama said his administation was going to be an open and transparent adiministration...

Just as the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was about to vote Eric H. Holder Jr. in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with a subpoena for documents in the flawed Fast and Furious gun-tracking case, President Obama asserted executive privilege and backed up the attorney general’s position in refusing to turn over the material.

Neverwinter

November 13, 2012, 11:28 PM

Wasn't Obama the candidate in the election previous to the most recent one, who bemoaned the lack of transparency in government and promised that under his stewardship he would see that was changed???

Likewise, unwillingness to publicize details of military discussion and planning is yet another case of how he has failed to work toward an open and transparent administration.

Well, isn't that what you're supposed to do in any messianic religion?
This post is more projecting that supports the supposition that the currently unanswered question has a response of "no".
You can't say "yes" to the question, because it makes you out to be a wild conspiracy theorist. You can't say "no", because it further supports the earlier allusions to identity-based guilt.

Where are the indictments? Why has no one in the Government been prosecuted?

That is the crux of the argument that there must have been higher up support for the BATFE program than acting-director Melson.
This is a good question that complements alsaqr's comment earlier about why there were no calls for reform from the Congressional committee after the truth of the IG reports came out. The IG report went into detail about how it was facilitated by those in the DoJ such as Weinstein, overseeing the BATFE.

On the other hand, I am honest, and not a Leftist Politician, who want to deprive people of the 2nd Amendment Rights, so maybe their attempt to cover up what happened is the normal way they operate.
You're letting them deceive you if you think that only one side is participating in political games. The partisan walkouts on contempt hearings in the past decade demonstrate that.

And there are some tantalizing scraps of evidence. The wire tap request, which went through Holder's office, and the daily briefings He should have seen, and the briefing of a National Security Adviser to the President, who was deliberately made unavailable to Congressional hearings.

Smoking gun? Perhaps not, but tantalizing evidence to say the least. Would it not be proper to know just what the President knew, and when did he know it? He seems to be have been very unconcerned about the facts of the matter, unless of course, he knew far more than he claims.
An internal investigation was started, and documents were withheld from the Congressional committee while being submitted to the ongoing investigation. So you could say that he was less concerned with putting on a show for the legislative branch than the facts of the matter.

Sure, he knows far more than he claims, just like Bush knows far more than he claims about Pat Tillman's death or the response to Katrina. Right. Got it.

Neverwinter

November 13, 2012, 11:52 PM

No, I dont take that position. Only you trying to create positions and facts think I do.

By all means, object to understanding the consequent of your position regarding guilt.

However, our system presumes not guilty, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

A jury gives verdicts of 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. 'Not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'.

In different types of trials there are different thresholds needs to get a guilty verdicts.
That's exactly what I was trying to get at, and what you continue to avoid. The system is based on the concept that the determination of guilt is an alternative to the base assumption, with the burden of proof on the accuser.

The position you've taken points to the procedural withholding of evidence as justification for deviating from the base assumption toward the assumption of guilt. You are caught between two similarly bankrupt positions: that the withholding of information such as refusal of a search counts as evidence of guilt, or that it is reasonable to deviate toward the determination of guilt in the absence of supporting evidence.

A jury is limited on their options of verdicts to render; guilty or not guilty.

We're not a jury. Oh wait, I get it, you're the jury for all of us. :rolleyes:

But since I havent given you permission to decide for me :neener: Im free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration.

Again, this continued persistence of the existence of a third option within a Boolean choice plays further into the fallacy of your position. It avoids the intellectual honesty of accepting the guilty verdict in the lack of evidence, which is what you are defending with your statement of being "free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration".

danez71

November 14, 2012, 12:22 AM

That's exactly what I was trying to get at, and what you continue to avoid. The system is based on the concept that the determination of guilt is an alternative to the base assumption, with the burden of proof on the accuser.

And exactly how am I avoiding it if I was the one that spelled it out for you?

Nice try twisting things up. :barf:

The position you've taken points to the procedural withholding of evidence as justification for deviating from the base assumption toward the assumption of guilt. You are caught between two similarly bankrupt positions: that the withholding of information such as refusal of a search counts as evidence of guilt, or that it is reasonable to deviate toward the determination of guilt in the absence of supporting evidence.

Once again, I dont take that position. Unlike you, I'm not assuming guilt or innocence. I simply look at the data and what it may or may not support.

You on the other hand, are taking the lack of data and assuming innocence.

You are playing 'jury' when you have no reason or justification to do so.

While doing so, you're limitiing your 'thought experiment' as you so proudly tout about yourself.

Again, this continued persistence of the existence of a third option within a Boolean choice plays further into the fallacy of your position. It avoids the intellectual honesty of accepting the guilty verdict in the lack of evidence, which is what you are defending with your statement of being "free to think for myself and take ALL the data into consideration".

And where do you magically get the power to declare this a Boolean choice? Did that come from your 'thought experiments?

Why are limiting your self?

News flash for you Neverwinter, this isnt a binary world.

Sure, he knows far more than he claims, just like Bush knows far more than he claims about Pat Tillman's death or the response to Katrina. Right. Got it.

Why are you diverting the conversation?

The issue is when they knew what they knew.

There is some evidence that shows that Holder had some knowledge of gun running programs involving illegal tactics while they were tacking place.

To not recognize that is just playing ostrich while claiming to have an eagle eye for the sake of arguing.

Oddly, or not so oddly, you quoted just about everything in my post but the most important part.

So I'll remind you of what I said:

In case YOU wernt aware....

If a person does something wrong, they're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent.

Neverwinter

November 14, 2012, 01:08 AM

And exactly how am I avoiding it if I was the one that spelled it out for you?

Nice try twisting things up. :barf:

Once again, I dont take that position. Unlike you, I'm not assuming guilt or innocence. I simply look at the data and what it may or may not support.
You're avoiding it because you state the words, but don't understand what they mean and why they contradict what you continue to say in the rest of the post.

Reread what you just said regarding our justice system to understand your strawman about my argument and how that strawman doesn't mesh with what I have said regarding guilt. The guilt or innocence of an act is independent of our determination of the evidence. My position is that you don't have evidence to support your deviation.
You on the other hand, are taking the lack of data and assuming innocence.

You are playing 'jury' when you have no reason or justification to do so.

While doing so, you're limitiing your 'thought experiment' as you so proudly tout about yourself.
Scroll back up in the discussion and you'll see that Old Fuff was the one to start this line of jury discussion. You are mistaken, because I'm voluntarily participating is his thought experiment. A courtesy not offered to me.
The IG report was an internal one, and based on only that information and documentation that the Administration and Justice Department were willing to release to it. Thus after reviewing only a part of the total they decide that neither the president or attorney general were guilty of any involvement, and those who are outside looking in are supposed to accept their findings without question?

If you were on a jury and knew that possibly important information had been withheld so you couldn't consider it, would you find the defendant guilty?

In this case it is the defendant who is withholding information, and then expects we will assume he is innocent.

Why do you expect people to decide what their opinion is, when they know that what they are being told is based entirely on selected evidence?

And where do you magically get the power to declare this a Boolean choice? Did that come from your 'thought experiments?

Why are limiting your self?

News flash for you Neverwinter, this isnt a binary world.
If a person does something wrong, they're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent.
If a person doesn't do something wrong, are they partially guilty? Partially innocent? Can you describe this alternate option between doing something wrong and not doing something wrong?

Why are you diverting the conversation?It's not diverting the conversation by demonstrating the invalidity of a line of reasoning regarding guilt in other cases of the same procedure.

There is some evidence that shows that Holder had some knowledge of gun running programs involving illegal tactics while they were tacking place.

To not recognize that is just playing ostrich while claiming to have an eagle eye for the sake of arguing.Then by all means, work from that angle rather than making the fallacious argument regarding the executive privilege documents.

Does this mean you're willing to give up the argument that the withholding of executive privilege documents is an indicator of guilt?

Oddly, or not so oddly, you quoted just about everything in my post but the most important part.

So I'll remind you of what I said:
I quoted everything that I had an issue with. As you would learn from the portion of my post above, there is no conflict between the concepts of modern justice and that statement regarding guilt and innocence.

danez71

November 14, 2012, 09:53 PM

The guilt or innocence of an act is independent of our determination of the evidence.

No. Its not. Guilt is guilt and innocent is innocent. However, a jury verdict of not guilty is neither guilty or innocent.
(edit: I may be misunderstanding your sentence)

My position is that you don't have evidence to support your deviation.

And if you scoll up a few pages you'll see that I said I dont know if either guilty or not. Did you forget that or just want to argue?

If you also remember, I also took your challange and said show me the documents and if they show no indication of involvment/knowledge, I'll agree to say neither had any.

Remember ANY of that? I think you even thanked me.

Does this mean you're willing to give up the argument that the withholding of executive privilege documents is an indicator of guilt?

I didnt say that. I'll I said is something similar to/paraphrasing 'it makes you wonder'.

Im, as well as others, are free to wonder all we want in either direction. You on the other hand, seem to be convinced of one particular determination with out knowing all of the facts.

If a person doesn't do something wrong, are they partially guilty? Partially innocent?

Seriously?

That just seems like you're wanting something to try to nitpick and argue about.

If you dont already know wrong from right, I, and dare I say maybe no one, will be able to explain it to you.

But for giggles I'll quote myself again.

If a person does something wrong, they're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent.

Now if you're talking about a court of law.... Well, Ive explained what jury verdicts mean a few posts up. Either you comprehend it or you dont.

You seem to be trying to justify your position by using the criteria a jury has to conform to but youre failing to realize that you, I , we, are not a jury and are free to wonder all we want.

Again, if you scroll up, you'll see that I said I dont know to what extent, if any, either ones involvement.

Neverwinter

November 16, 2012, 02:33 AM

No. Its not. Guilt is guilt and innocent is innocent. However, a jury verdict of not guilty is neither guilty or innocent.
(edit: I may be misunderstanding your sentence)

Yes, a jury verdict in the absence of clairvoyance is merely an approximation of what occurred based on the evidence presented.

And if you scoll up a few pages you'll see that I said I dont know if either guilty or not. Did you forget that or just want to argue?

If you also remember, I also took your challange and said show me the documents and if they show no indication of involvment/knowledge, I'll agree to say neither had any.

Remember ANY of that? I think you even thanked me.
Sorry, I have been using you as the stand in for those who are unable to otherwise defend their rationale of the executive privilege as an indicator of guilt.

What you did say was:
Which is why, IMO and probably others, think the Neverwinter isnt being rational in accepting the limited released data as enough to decide that Holder and Obama are completely innocent.
Which I seem to have misinterpreted when combined with Dammitboy's post as "you can't stay on the choice of not guilty when limited data is available". As you have said, that wasn't your position. Dammitboy has made statements otherwise. It is inappropriate for me to hold you to his opinions.

I didnt say that. I'll I said is something similar to/paraphrasing 'it makes you wonder'.

Im, as well as others, are free to wonder all we want in either direction. You on the other hand, seem to be convinced of one particular determination with out knowing all of the facts.
I suppose the tactic of "wondering" by the Fox News Channel crowd has attached a negative connotation when used in matters such as this. In their usage, "wondering" is merely a postulation of an unsupported opinion.

My determination is merely that an invocation of executive privilege doesn't confer guilt, not the strawman of the clairvoyant assumption of guilt or innocence that some have demonstrated in this thread.

If you dont already know wrong from right, I, and dare I say maybe no one, will be able to explain it to you.

You said that we don't live in a binary world, then continued on to an instance where there is a binary decision. The choice between guilty and not guilty is not an artificially binary decision. Given a framework of the burden of proof being on the accuser, either they have sufficient evidence to support their accusation or they do not. You see the same kind of decision making in scientific experimentation and in statistical hypothesis testing.

Now if you're talking about a court of law.... Well, Ive explained what jury verdicts mean a few posts up. Either you comprehend it or you dont.

You seem to be trying to justify your position by using the criteria a jury has to conform to but youre failing to realize that you, I , we, are not a jury and are free to wonder all we want.
If you have a problem with arguing from the perspective of a jury, take it up with Old Fuff. It was his analogy.

My posts highlighted the fallacy of using the protection of information as proof of guilt.

Again, if you scroll up, you'll see that I said I dont know to what extent, if any, either ones involvement.Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.

Old Fuff

November 16, 2012, 11:54 AM

If you have a problem with arguing from the perspective of a jury, take it up with Old Fuff. It was his analogy.

The point of the analogy is that a jury cannot reach an informed opinion if they're decision is reached based on selected evidence. They do of course, all of the time, and sometimes it turns out they were wrong.

Here we have an office holder who is asking for the public to trust him, while at the same time suppressing evidence. It seems unlikely he would do this if the documents in question would support his claim of innocence. It would be far more likely under the circumstances that the material would from his perspective not be favorable.

Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.

Me think the pot is calling the kettle black. :D I don't see anyone coming forward in agreement with your positions on the issue. :uhoh:

DammitBoy

November 17, 2012, 03:20 AM

How can you come to any decision when you know evidence is being withheld to protect the accused and the accused is the one denying the court access to that information.

How can the President claim E.P. - if his claim is the white house was not involved and had no knowledge? What evidence would he be withholding by E.P. if his claim is there is no evidence to withhold?

Neverwinter can assume innocence (based on incomplete data) all he wants but we know what happens when one assumes such, don't we?

Neverwinter

November 18, 2012, 01:42 AM

The point of the analogy is that a jury cannot reach an informed opinion if they're decision is reached based on selected evidence. They do of course, all of the time, and sometimes it turns out they were wrong.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have asked what a person should do in a situation where the justice system endorses and even codifies different behavior than what you were proposing. If we are to believe what you have just said, then there is practically no jury which has reached an informed opinion because the evidence presented to them is selected. A defense attorney wouldn't be able to withhold the police statements involving accusations of molestation over a decade from a murder trial. If the statement of that Orlando woman is excluded from the selected evidence, the jurors might make an uninformed decision and erroneously find someone not guilty.

Here we have an office holder who is asking for the public to trust him, while at the same time suppressing evidence. It seems unlikely he would do this if the documents in question would support his claim of innocence. It would be far more likely under the circumstances that the material would from his perspective not be favorable.As a hypothetical, if you were to purchase a large black silicone marital aid, that might be material which is not favorable but not at all relevant to a murder trial.

Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.
Me think the pot is calling the kettle black. :D I don't see anyone coming forward in agreement with your positions on the issue. :uhoh:
Please read that again to comprehend what was being said. That was not an argumentum ad populum, as you have misunderstood.

Neverwinter

November 18, 2012, 01:53 AM

How can you come to any decision when you know evidence is being withheld to protect the accused and the accused is the one denying the court access to that information.
How can anyone come to a decision when the accused refuses to waive all 4th amendment and 5th amendment rights? Shouldn't they be declared guilty because the evidence that they aren't providing clearly indicates that they're hiding their guilt?

How can the President claim E.P. - if his claim is the white house was not involved and had no knowledge? What evidence would he be withholding by E.P. if his claim is there is no evidence to withhold?
The link has been provided repeatedly but it looks like very few people were willing to look at the opinion of a legal scholar. So I'll just quote the relevant parts here and hope that they'll at least read that far.
The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions.

Neverwinter can assume innocence (based on incomplete data) all he wants but we know what happens when one assumes such, don't we?You have a modern judicial system which respects the rights of the accused and doesn't allow people to assume guilt based on a lack of evidence or conjecture toward guilt from their personal prejudices. By all means, please elaborate as to how our modern judicial system is flawed by having the 4th and 5th Amendment protections. Perhaps you can continue down that path and elaborate as to how our modern policing system is flawed by allowing civilians to own and carry guns due to the 2nd Amendment.

DammitBoy

November 18, 2012, 11:31 AM

Our judicial system has nothing to do with our government withholding the facts from the people.

Deflection, thy name is neverwinter...

danez71

November 18, 2012, 12:12 PM

As a hypothetical, if you were to purchase a large black silicone marital aid, that might be material which is not favorable but not at all relevant to a murder trial.

This is another example where you completely lose me as far as you having any logic worth considering.

1st) Its such a giant leap of tagent that it just wreaks of a diversionary/deflection tactic to throw disscussion into a different direction.

2nd) It sure could be relevent depending on what circumstances the murder occured.

3rd) But this EP isnt being used to hide info about unrelated topics. Its beining used to hide info directly connected to this specific topic.

(Your use of such an outlandish analogy is another example of you trying to deflect/divert.)

If we are to believe what you have just said, then there is practically no jury which has reached an informed opinion because the evidence presented to them is selected.

Again, another diversion attempt. EP and gunrunning really dont much to do with juryies or jury processes.

However, all of the prison sentences that have been over turned in recent years should be an indication to you that our jury system is far from perfect. But thats a whole other topic of discussion

The link has been provided repeatedly but it looks like very few people were willing to look at the opinion of a legal scholar. So I'll just quote the relevant parts here and hope that they'll at least read that far.

Quote:
The form of executive privilege at stake in the current dispute is "deliberative privilege."

Deliberative privilege aims to protect documents generated anywhere in the executive branch that embody only the executive's internal deliberations, not final policy decisions

Its really of no difference and more than likely its a strategic move.

Potentially the 'final policy decision' is 'the DOJ is going to track guns going into Mexico'.

Where-as the 'internal deliberations' may have included something like 'I want to prove guns are bad and getting into Mexico, Go make that happen!!' .

This is what I openly said about 3 pages ago I think might have happend.

Things like that happen far too often. A superior gives an order to 'make it happen' and the subrdinate creates a way to fullfil the superiors order.

leadcounsel

November 18, 2012, 12:45 PM

As a taxpayer, voter, veteran, US citizen, lawyer and gun owner, the invocation of this privilege is a dirty move to conceal damning evidence - and frankly it has no parellel to a civilian criminal accusation. It is clear that it is detrimental to the administration, otherwise they would not only release it, but they'd announce it loudly to the world much like any other accomplishments.

I can think of very limited circumstances where a lawyer would advise his client (the government), who then appeared to commit a crime, and that advice to the client is not able to be known by the very people who PAY and are the BOSS of the lawyer and the client. Stated otherwise: WE taxpayers pay the lawyer and the client. WE taxpayers therefore are able to know the advice OUR laywer gave to OUR client.

Folks here are confused thinking about a civilian situation. If a civilian came to my legal office prior to commiting a crime, my advice to him is privileged. If he committed a crime then my advice is still privileged (unless he tries to throw me under the bus, in which case I can defend myself by defeating the privilege).

HOWEVER, we have TWO public officials - a lawyer and the client. A crime appears to have been committed. HOW do we know whether the advice was sound? Whether it was to commit the crime or not? HOW do we know whether our employee committed the crime against the advice of OUR lawyer? These are VERY important questions and ones WE have an absolute right to. PEOPLE HAVE DIED!!!!

There are only a few realistic reasons to conduct such a bone-headed operation.
1. Feable attempt to track guns - clearly unworkable because it didn't come close to working. And I've been dialed in to countless mission operation concepts. Any evaluation of this would quickly show the risk is NOT worth any reward.

More sinister reasons:
2. Create civil war by arming Mexican drugs lords with a light Brigade's worth of military style weapons.
3. Watch as the body count in Mexico (and even America) rises to create an anti-gun argument and another AWB.

Anyone have any other thoughts? There really are few other reasons...

So much for a transparent administration.

k_dawg

November 18, 2012, 01:01 PM

People forget that the basis of our criminal court system is not factual truth.
Hence, the existance of the 4th and 5th amendments.

In this case, the issue concerns the hypocracy of this administration.

Neverwinter

November 18, 2012, 01:20 PM

1st) Its such a giant leap of tagent that it just wreaks of a diversionary/deflection tactic to throw disscussion into a different direction.

2nd) It sure could be relevent depending on what circumstances the murder occured.

3rd) But this EP isnt being used to hide info about unrelated topics. Its beining used to hide info directly connected to this specific topic.

(Your use of such an outlandish analogy is another example of you trying to deflect/divert.)
1st: You keep using that word in examples where a counterexample is provided which demonstrates the inadequacies of the logic involved. It is not my fault if you can't follow the logic as to how an unrelated purchase you made might be something which you would want to be protected by the 4th Amendment while not hiding evidence relevant to the case.

2nd: If that murder was performed with a gun, it is unlikely that the marital aid would be relevant.

3rd: It might be relevant from the perspective of a prosecutor, if the victim were black. They could work the angle of the color of the purchase, depending on the malleability of the jurors.

Again, another diversion attempt. EP and gunrunning really dont much to do with juryies or jury processes.

However, all of the prison sentences that have been over turned in recent years should be an indication to you that our jury system is far from perfect. But thats a whole other topic of discussion
The question asked was about how a jury would act if they were only provided selected portions of information. The proper actions where then described to them, and then all of a sudden the argument is a "distraction" now that it directly contradicts the intended point. If jury decision making is a distraction, why didn't you address that after the one in which Old Fuff brought it up rather than at the point where I use it?

The system is deliberately intended to minimize the influence of prejudices by having the jurors selected rule directly based on the available evidence. If you have jurors who are willing to disobey those instructions(given how Old Fuff indicates that obeying would prevent an informed decision), then there are absolutely going to be failures in the system caused by human error.

Of course, I may be wrong about what Old Fuff would do on a jury. He should tell you himself as to whether he would follow jury instructions rather than contribute to incorrect verdicts.

Its really of no difference and more than likely its a strategic move.
Multiple posters asked about why their presumption about the president being directly involved would not be true and how the invocation of executive privilege demonstrates how that must be the case.

There's citation explaining otherwise, and seems to be yet another instance where a counterexample is written off as a "diversion" merely because having to

Potentially the 'final policy decision' is 'the DOJ is going to track guns going into Mexico'.

Where-as the 'internal deliberations' may have included something like 'I want to prove guns are bad and getting into Mexico, Go make that happen!!' .

This is what I openly said about 3 pages ago I think might have happend.

Things like that happen far too often. A superior gives an order to 'make it happen' and the subrdinate creates a way to fullfil the superiors order.And when Holder sends emails after the CBS story, attempting to confirm that gunwalking isn't occurring, his subordinates' response denying it were all merely an illusion meant to disguise the fact that Holder received policy from Obama about making sure guns are going into Mexico.

And within those executive privilege documents is the planning of when emails would fall under Opposite Day, where he could check that the gun walking plan is actually working out.

It's clever of him, hiding the iocaine powder like that.

Neverwinter

November 18, 2012, 01:42 PM

There are only a few realistic reasons to conduct such a bone-headed operation.
1. Feable attempt to track guns - clearly unworkable because it didn't come close to working. And I've been dialed in to countless mission operation concepts. Any evaluation of this would quickly show the risk is NOT worth any reward.

More sinister reasons:
2. Create civil war by arming Mexican drugs lords with a light Brigade's worth of military style weapons.
3. Watch as the body count in Mexico (and even America) rises to create an anti-gun argument and another AWB.

Anyone have any other thoughts? There really are few other reasons...

4. Instate officials who are capable and willing to act on their own accord to facilitate gun walking, in order to promote abridging of executive privilege for when their party's administration is out in 2016.

You need to think more steps ahead. These are the people who had the forethought to have planned out deceiving each other once their plan had been found out.

Sky

November 18, 2012, 02:41 PM

As a taxpayer, voter, veteran, US citizen, lawyer and gun owner, the invocation of this privilege is a dirty move to conceal damning evidence - and frankly it has no parallel to a civilian criminal accusation. It is clear that it is detrimental to the administration, otherwise they would not only release it, but they'd announce it loudly to the world much like any other accomplishments.

Most normal people would think so IMO.

Also I was told E.P. could only be used in an investigation if the W.H. was directly involved; if true then there is the answer 'legally' right there... All this is much further up the food chain than my pay grade yet it does leave a certain air I would much rather not be forced to breathe.

danez71

November 18, 2012, 08:59 PM

1st:....
It is not my fault if you can't follow the logic as to how an unrelated purchase you made might be something which you would want to be protected by the 4th Amendment while not hiding evidence relevant to the case..

I can follow logic. The issue is that your counter examples are so vaguely relatable to this specific situation that thye dont make sense to use as counter examples. An unrelated marital aide/murder is not really a sensible counter example to EP that is hiding related documents.

See the difference?

2nd: If that murder was performed with a gun, it is unlikely that the marital aid would be relevant.

Right... Marital aid = not relevant.

3rd: It might be relevant from the perspective of a prosecutor, if the victim were black. They could work the angle of the color of the purchase, depending on the malleability of the jurors.

If the murder was with gun, marital aid still = not relevent. (PS, Im not going down the 'race' road so drop it. Its a bad ex.)

The question asked was about how a jury would act if they were only provided selected portions of information. The proper actions where then described to them, and then all of a sudden the argument is a "distraction" now that it directly contradicts the intended point. If jury decision making is a distraction, why didn't you address that after the one in which Old Fuff brought it up rather than at the point where I use it?

1st, I was having a conversation with you; not Oldfluff. I quoted you; not Oldfluff.

You're the one that is countering to me in regards to what other people say as if I said it.

Do you remember saying the following two quotes to me?

Sorry, I have been using you as the stand in for those who are unable to otherwise defend their rationale of the executive privilege as an indicator of guilt.

Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.

The system is deliberately intended to minimize the influence of prejudices by having the jurors selected rule directly based on the available evidence.

If you have jurors who are willing to disobey those instructions(given how Old Fuff indicates that obeying would prevent an informed decision), then there are absolutely going to be failures in the system caused by human error.

Its not that binary.

You're right on the 1st part but only partially right on the 2nd part. Another flaw could be if there is relevent info to a case but it isnt allowed because of a technicality of say a date on a form had 2013 instead of 2012. In that ex., the jurors are not allowed to make their decision on the full evidence. Now we can debate whether or not the evidence not allowed because of a technicality to death but lets not and try to keep on topic.( In this ex., the laws are binary and 2013 probably wouldnt be allowed but it should because life isnt binary.)

Of course, I may be wrong about what Old Fuff would do on a jury. He should tell you himself as to whether he would follow jury instructions rather than contribute to incorrect verdicts.

You're right... he should tell me... IF I asked him. But I didnt ask him because its not relevent to me in this topic.

Multiple posters asked about why their presumption about the president being directly involved would not be true and how the invocation of executive privilege demonstrates how that must be the case.

So reply to them! I didnt ask that so you sticking that reply topic in a response to me just doesnt make sense an alludes to me saying/asking something that I didnt.

Please refer back to you realizing that YOU'RE using me as a stand in for other people.

There's citation explaining otherwise, and seems to be yet another instance where a counterexample is written off as a "diversion" merely because having to

The difference between EP and DP isnt relevent because they both accomplishing the same thing which is hiding RELATIVE documents. EP or DP is used to hide RELATIVE documents. Thats the purpose of EP/DP.

Its not to hide marital aides not relevent in a murder case. Its not used to hide documents regarding world trade strategies/policies when documents relating to gunrunning are requested.

SO when you use such odd ball counter examples, it only undermines any valid points you may have,

And when Holder sends emails after the CBS story, attempting to confirm that gunwalking isn't occurring, his subordinates' response denying it were all merely an illusion meant to disguise the fact that Holder received policy from Obama about making sure guns are going into Mexico.

I didnt say Obama. You assumed it and replied in such a way that alluded that I did say that.

But I didnt say it.

You see how you do that?

So one of 2 things is happening.

1) Youre either totally unaware of your own assumptions when you reply.
Or
2) You are trying to allude that I said something that I didnt for the purpose of undermining me a falsely bolstering your position.

DammitBoy

November 19, 2012, 02:48 PM

Neverwinter is only deflecting for the sake of deflecting from the only real fact we do have.

FACT: We the People have a right to know what our government did in this case. A right to all the facts and it is the duty of our elected officials to present us with ALL the facts.

It's not a civil case, so stop bs'ing about civil court cases.

Davek1977

November 20, 2012, 05:04 AM

It's not a civil case, so stop bs'ing about civil court cases. Actually, this is ALL about a civil case at this point. The Justice Dept declined to prosecute Holder, meaning the only alternative was to sue in civil court for the release of the documents in question. We can quit BS'ing about CRIMINAL charges, because, whether or not warranted, we are beyond that point in the process and it won't be revisited.

Carl N. Brown

November 20, 2012, 06:01 AM

Neverwinter:
Quote: Originally Posted by Carl N. Brown "Yes, there was gunwalking. Then Holder claimed he put an end to gunwalking while simultaneously claiming he did not know about it until after the operation had ended. And the great and wonderful wizard of Obama says there is no need to look behind the curtain. It is all just coincidence."

If you're referring to the Feb 4, 2011 letter, that wasn't claiming that he put an end to the gun walking of the Bush era. .....
For context: I was referring to Holder's 7 Jun 2012 House and 12 Jun 2012 Senate testimony.
OIG Review:
Attorney General Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee on June 7, 2012, that former Attorney General Mukasey was briefed on the transmission of guns to Mexico and “did far less than what I did.” On June 12, 2012, Attorney General Holder testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stating, “An [A]ttorney [G]eneral who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them -- nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.”

Holder before Senate 12 Jun 2012:
If you want to talk about Fast and Furious, I'm the Attorney General that put an end to the misguided tactics that were used in Fast and Furious. An Attorney General who I suppose you would hold in higher regard was briefed on these kinds of tactics in an operation called Wide Receiver and did nothing to stop them -- nothing. Three hundred guns, at least, walked in that instance.

OIG Review:
We also determined that former Attorney General Michael Mukasey was never made aware that ATF, in connection with Operation Wide Receiver, was allowing or had allowed firearms to “walk.” We found that Mukasey was briefed on ATF’s attempts to use controlled deliveries – a law enforcement technique that witnesses told us differs significantly from “walking” in that it involves the delivery of contraband under surveillance or other control by law enforcement agents, with arrests and interdictions at the point of transfer – in a different ATF firearms trafficking investigation involving a lead subject named Fidel Hernandez. While the briefing paper did mention that ATF’s attempts to conduct controlled deliveries had been unsuccessful, we found no basis to conclude that this briefing put Mukasey on notice of Operation Wide Receiver or of “walking” as a tactic employed in ATF investigations.

Mukasey was never in a position to stop OWR and never allowed gunwalking. Holder's own Office of Legislative Affairs informed Congress Mar 2012 that a search of the records showed no briefings at the DOJ AG level on either Operation Wide Receiver or Operation Fast and Furious while they were on-going.

As far as Holder claiming credit for ending gunwalking under OF&F, the Holder DOJ official position to Congress from the 4 Feb 2011 letter to the 2 Dec 2011 letter was that there was no gunwalking under OF&F.

2006 Jun - William Newell took over OWR as ATF SAC Phoenix and became a fan of gunwalking (did not like controlled delivery with contract with FFL and notification of Mexican police.) The Phoenix Assitant US Attorneys found the OWR cases so screwed up they did not think they were prosecutable. When the Obama administration decided to prosecute the OWR cases and announced a "Cartel based strategy", Newell took that as vindication of the tactic of gunwalking and rescinding the 6 Oct 2007 stop, as the 31 Oct 2009 Chambers Case morphed into Operation Fast and Furious during Nov 2009 under Phoenix ATF Newell, Voth and MacAllister. (ATF Phoenix case agent Hope MacAllister--cited for blame in the OIG Review--and her lawyer claim the approval of gunwalking in OF&F went much higher than Phoenix ATF SAC Newell. Maybe there is something behind the curtain.)

The Democrat talking points are (a) that gunwalking started under the Bushies in Operation Wide Receiver but was ended under Obama by Holder and (b) that Operation Fast and Furious never involved gunwalking but prosecution of straw purchasers, unlicensed dealers and cross-border traffickers was stymied by lax Arizona state laws promoted by the GOP and NRA.

Phoenix US Attorney Dennis Burke acknowledged by email the day after Brian Terry died that the two guns at the death scene were OF&F guns from Phoenix, but months later told the Terry family the guns came from a Texas operation. Lie.

Lax Arizona state law on straw purchase, unlicensed dealing and cross-border trafficking prevented ATF and USAO from enforcing federal law on straw purchase, unlicensed dealing and cross-border trafficking. Big lie.

Neverwinter

November 21, 2012, 10:34 PM

I can follow logic. The issue is that your counter examples are so vaguely relatable to this specific situation that thye dont make sense to use as counter examples. An unrelated marital aide/murder is not really a sensible counter example to EP that is hiding related documents.

See the difference?

Right... Marital aid = not relevant.

If the murder was with gun, marital aid still = not relevent. (PS, Im not going down the 'race' road so drop it. Its a bad ex.)You don't want to go down the race road, and that's understandable since it points out an aspect of your position that you can't defend.

Personally, I wouldn't think it's relevant, but a jury and a crafty prosecution could think otherwise.

1st, I was having a conversation with you; not Oldfluff. I quoted you; not Oldfluff.

You're the one that is countering to me in regards to what other people say as if I said it.

Do you remember saying the following two quotes to me?
Those quotes refer to the position of not being willing to accept potential evidence from the EP documents as affecting your decision.

It was your claim that bringing up the subject of juries was a distraction. I didn't think it was a distraction when I responded to Old Fuff. He didn't think so when he introduced it unless he was deliberately trying to distract the debate himself. People have come to criticize the mention of the process when it is used to undermine your position, but let it fly by when it's to your benefit.

Perhaps it was premature to offer that congratulations for rising above.

You're right on the 1st part but only partially right on the 2nd part. Another flaw could be if there is relevent info to a case but it isnt allowed because of a technicality of say a date on a form had 2013 instead of 2012. In that ex., the jurors are not allowed to make their decision on the full evidence. Now we can debate whether or not the evidence not allowed because of a technicality to death but lets not and try to keep on topic.( In this ex., the laws are binary and 2013 probably wouldnt be allowed but it should because life isnt binary.)And if you apply your example to the current discussion of Old Fuff's position, you can see how easily jurors who might be aware that there was hidden relevant information which vindicated the defendant could incorrectly rule guilty by ignoring their instructions and making presumptions about evidence that they did not observe.

You're right... he should tell me... IF I asked him. But I didnt ask him because its not relevent to me in this topic.

So reply to them! I didnt ask that so you sticking that reply topic in a response to me just doesnt make sense an alludes to me saying/asking something that I didnt.

Please refer back to you realizing that YOU'RE using me as a stand in for other people.

Your response was to my reply to them. If you thought his jury mention was irrelevant, you should have taken it to him. I don't know if you're aware of it, but you're falling victim to your double standard. If you didn't want me to call you out on that double standard, you should have objected to Old Fuff's introduction of the topic rather than criticize my post for something that you only had a problem with when it undermined your position.

The difference between EP and DP isnt relevent because they both accomplishing the same thing which is hiding RELATIVE documents. EP or DP is used to hide RELATIVE documents. Thats the purpose of EP/DP.

I didnt say Obama. You assumed it and replied in such a way that alluded that I did say that.

But I didnt say it.
You criticized my post explaining the nature of deliberative privilege and how it is a specific form of executive privilege that doesn't support the accusation of Obama being directly involved.

You said "EP vs DP. Dont try to divert from the topic by spliting hairs. Its symantecs(sic) only. Its really of no difference and more than likely its a strategic move." If you didn't actually mean that, feel free to retract your statement.

You see how you do that?

So one of 2 things is happening.

1) Youre either totally unaware of your own assumptions when you reply.
Or
2) You are trying to allude that I said something that I didnt for the purpose of undermining me a falsely bolstering your position.
It seems that you're unaware of the implications of what you wrote regarding DP when you came to the defense of other people's posts without understanding what they're arguing and what I'm refuting.

Frank Ettin

November 22, 2012, 12:19 AM

Getting personal so we're done here.

If you enjoyed reading about "Fast and Furious Report by DOJ Inspector General now available" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!